- 46 -
WELLS, J., concurring: I respectfully write separately to
express my belief that the majority opinion may have
unnecessarily focused its analysis on contract law to decide
whether respondent abused his discretion in the instant case.
Section 6330(c)(3)(C) requires the Appeals officer to consider
“whether any proposed collection action balances the need for the
efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the
person that any collection action be no more intrusive than
necessary.” This provision requires the Appeals officer, when
conducting a hearing under section 6330, to carry out a balancing
of competing considerations between the Government and the person
against whom the collection action is instituted. Given this
balancing requirement, I do not believe the Appeals officer
should be required to rigidly apply contract law in determining
whether the Government should proceed with collection of a
liability where that liability, as in the instant case, has been
compromised in an agreement between the Government and the person
against whom the collection action has been instituted.1 Such a
requirement would detract from the flexibility and discretion
Congress granted the Appeals officer in section 6330(c)(3)(C) to
balance competing interests between the Government and those
persons. Consequently, I believe the focus of the analysis in
1I do not mean to suggest, however, that respondent could
not have considered contract law issues, as well as other facts
and issues, as part of the balancing required under sec.
6330(c)(3)(C).
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