- 29 -
otherwise (as, for example, in the case of taxes not eligible for
deficiency proceedings). But one cannot as readily infer from
the statutory modifications an intention to foreclose
consideration of self-assessed liabilities in a section 6330
proceeding. The report of the conference committee is similarly
opaque, lacking any specific indication that the conferees
intended to address the concern expressed about allowing
taxpayers to dispute self-assessed liabilities in a section 6330
proceeding. The only reference in the report to the newly added
limiting language of the statute is a single sentence that
closely tracks the statute.
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. * * *
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.
747, 1019; emphasis added.]
These aspects of the legislative history, rather than
offering any support for respondent’s position, give rise to a
negative inference concerning Congress’s intention to foreclose
review of self-assessed liabilities in section 6330 proceedings.
Having been advised of the executive branch’s concern about
allowing taxpayers to dispute self-assessed liabilities in
section 6330 proceedings, the conferees’ failure to refer to
self-assessed amounts when modifying the provision at issue, in
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011