- 51 -
change to the Senate amendment reflected in section
6330(c)(2)(B), it is reasonable to infer that the conferees were
responding, at least in part, to the stated concerns of
Administration officials and did not intend the result reached by
the majority.
The foregoing inference is supported by other language in
the conference report. Regarding the scope of the section 6330
hearing, the report provides: “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.” Id. at 265, 1998-3
C.B. at 1019 (emphasis added). That language suggests that
Congress did not intend to allow challenges to the Commissioner’s
right to collect the unpaid tax liability in those instances in
which the taxpayer’s nonreceipt of a statutory notice of
deficiency is solely attributable to the fact that the
Commissioner did not determine a deficiency in the first place.
Rather, the reference to “actual” receipt of “the” notice of
deficiency suggests that, in the case of taxes subject to the
deficiency procedures, such as the income tax, Congress was
targeting the situation in which, although the Commissioner
determined a deficiency and properly issued a statutory notice of
deficiency, the taxpayer did not actually (or constructively, see
Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 611 (2000)) receive that
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011