- 24 -
shown on the CDP Notice. [Sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-
D4, Proced. & Admin. Regs.]
Hence, both the statutory and the regulatory language
suggest a relatively permissive standard under which
participation in earlier collection proceedings would not
constitute disqualifying prior involvement for purposes of
section 6320 or 6330. Legislative history is supportive of such
a construction, providing:
The conferees anticipate that the IRS will combine
Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Lien hearings
whenever possible. If multiple hearings are held, it
is expected that, to the extent practicable, the same
appellate officer will hear the taxpayer with regard to
both lien and levy issues. If the taxpayer requests a
hearing following receipt of a Notice of Lien or Notice
of Intent to Levy and, prior to the date of the
hearing, receives the other notice, the scheduled
hearing will serve for both purposes and the taxpayer
is obligated to raise all relevant issues at such
hearing. [H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 266 (1998), 1998-
3 C.B. 747, 1020.]
Thus, given the above authorities, there can be little doubt that
some form of exception to the bar on prior involvement is
countenanced and intended for participation in earlier collection
proceedings. However, by their terms, the foregoing appear to be
directed toward multiple proceedings where the same year or years
are specifically the subject of the collection actions. Proper
application to proceedings where different tax periods are in
issue is less explicit.
Caselaw, too, offers only limited guidance. This Court has
characterized the policy of the bar as follows: “The
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011