- 28 -
be unworkable. Likewise, since much of the relevant information
would remain unchanged regardless of the period under
consideration, wasteful redundancy could be sanctioned by too
narrow a reading of the exception, and the avoidance thereof
likely formed part of the reasoning behind inclusion of the
exception in the statute. Accordingly, the Court concludes that
Mr. Skidmore’s consideration of the 2001 and 2002 years during
the collection hearing process concerning 2000 did not lead to
disqualification on grounds of prior involvement as that
terminology is used in section 6330(b)(3).
The foregoing conclusion does not, however, necessarily end
the inquiry with respect to a potential violation of section
6330(b)(3). The question remains as to whether the provision
also incorporates a general requirement of impartiality, in the
sense of no prejudice or bias, that might have been transgressed
on these facts. The Court has spoken briefly to this point in
the context of a lien action under section 6320:
Section 6320(b)(3) limits the definition of “impartial
officer” * * *, and that definition does not address,
and arguably does not permit, a challenge to the
objectivity of the hearing officer who presides over a
hearing under sections 6320 and 6330. However, we
shall assume without deciding, for purposes of this
analysis, that sections 6320 and 6330 permit a
challenge in appropriate cases to a demonstrably biased
hearing officer. See secs. 6320(c), 6330(c)(2)(A) (A
person may raise at the hearing any relevant issue
relating to the proposed collection action including
the enumerated issues). [Criner v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-328.]
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011