- 43 -
could have raised at the section 6320 hearing but did not. The
majority opinion concludes as follows:
Because the only issue raised with the Appeals
officer was the installment agreement, our review is
limited to the determination reached by the Appeals
officer to reject the proposed installment agreement
because of Mr. Giamelli’s noncompliance. The argument
that an estate is a separate person and is entitled to
its own collection review hearing fails for the same
reason. While the estate has cited no authority for
this novel argument, and we know of none, such an
argument is not timely. As discussed above, our review
is limited to the determination issued by respondent’s
Appeals Office. * * *
Majority op. p. 16.
The majority justifies its summary dismissal of the estate’s
argument that it is entitled to its own collection review hearing
under section 6320 by its conclusion that the argument “is not
timely”. However, the estate did not exist at any time during
the section 6320 hearing process and consequently, could not have
raised any issue before the Appeals Office. It is only because
of the unexpected death of Mr. Giamelli in an automobile accident
after the section 6320 hearing process had been completed and
after Mr. Giamelli had filed his petition in this Court that the
estate came into being and had any opportunity to raise issues
regarding the lien filed with respect to Mr. Giamelli’s unpaid
2001 tax liability.
The majority appears to assume that the only reason the
estate is contending it should receive a separate notice under
section 6320 is to permit the estate to receive a section 6320
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007