- 10 -
747, 1020. At the hearing, the Appeals officer is required to
verify that “the requirements of any applicable law or
administrative procedure have been met.” Sec. 6330(c)(1); see
sec. 6330(c)(3)(A).10 The Appeals officer is also required to
address whether the proposed collection action balances the need
for efficient tax collection with the legitimate concern that any
collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. Sec.
6330(c)(3)(C). The taxpayer may raise “any relevant issue
relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy”. Sec.
6330(c)(2)(A). The taxpayer is also entitled to challenge “the
existence or amount of the underlying tax liability” if he or she
“did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax
liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute
such tax liability.” Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
In Chocallo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-152, the
Commissioner had acknowledged that the tax liability he had been
trying to collect by levy had been improperly assessed, had
refunded previously collected amounts with interest, and had
agreed that there was no unpaid tax liability upon which a levy
could be based. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the case as
moot. The Court stated: “Our jurisdiction under section 6330 is
10 Although this language is somewhat open ended, the
legislative history clarifies that this required verification
pertains to legal and administrative requirements “for the
proposed collection action”. H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 264
(1998), 1998-3 C.B. 747, 1018.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011