- 33 -
Petitioners maintain, however, that more is demanded. They
rely on the following passage from legislative history:
During the hearing, the IRS is required to verify
that all statutory, regulatory, and administrative
requirements for the proposed collection action have
been met. IRS verifications are expected to include
(but not be limited to) showings that:
(1) the revenue officer recommending the
collection action has verified the taxpayer’s
liability;
(2) the estimated expenses of levy and sale
will not exceed the value of the property to be
seized;
(3) the revenue officer has determined that
there is sufficient equity in the property to be
seized to yield net proceeds from sale to apply to
the unpaid tax liabilities; and
(4) with respect to the seizure of the assets
of a going business, the revenue officer
recommending the collection action has thoroughly
considered the facts of the case, including the
availability of alternative collection methods,
before recommending the collection action. [H.
Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 264 (1998), 1998-3 C.B.
747, 1018.]
According to petitioners, the fourth enumerated item is
applicable to their circumstances. They contend that it imposes
an “elevated review” and was improperly ignored in the
determinations.
The difficulty with petitioners’ position is that the
statute as enacted requires by its terms verification “that the
requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure
have been met.” Sec. 6330(c)(1). Petitioners have alerted us to
no law or administrative procedure that would direct revenue
officers to engage in the specific analysis suggested, much less
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011