Nield and Linda Montgomery - Page 25

                                       - 25 -                                         
          As to the emphasized language, the conference report states:                
                    The conference agreement includes a modified form                 
               of the Senate amendment.  The IRS would be required to                 
               provide the taxpayer with a “Notice of Intent to Levy,”                
               formally stating its intention to collect a tax                        
               liability by levy against the taxpayer’s property or                   
               rights to property.  * * *                                             
               * * *  In general, any issue that is relevant to the                   
               appropriateness of the proposed collection against the                 
               taxpayer can be raised at the pre-levy hearing.  For                   
               example, the taxpayer can request innocent spouse                      
               status, make an offer-in-compromise, request an                        
               installment agreement or suggest which assets should be                
               used to satisfy the tax liability.  However, the                       
               validity of the tax liability can be challenged only if                
               the taxpayer did not actually receive the statutory                    
               notice of deficiency or has not otherwise had an                       
               opportunity to dispute the liability. [H. Conf. Rept.                  
               105-599, at 265 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 1019; emphasis                     
               added.]                                                                
          The conferees’ use of the term “tax liability” in both places is            
          consistent with a plain meaning application and is inconsistent             
          with the position taken by respondent in this case.                         
               FOLEY, J., agrees with this concurring opinion.                        




















Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011