Joseph E. Lewis - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
               Section 6330(c) prescribes the matters that a person may               
          raise at an Appeals Office hearing.  Section 6330(c)(2)(A)                  
          provides that a person may raise collection issues such as                  
          spousal defenses, the appropriateness of respondent's intended              
          collection action, and possible alternative means of collection.            
          See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v.                 
          Commissioner, supra.  Section 6330(c)(2)(B) establishes                     
          circumstances under which a person may challenge the existence or           
          amount of his or her underlying tax liability.  Under section               
          6330(c)(4), however, a person is prohibited from raising in a               
          collection review proceeding an issue that was raised and                   
          considered at a previous administrative or judicial proceeding if           
          the person seeking to raise the issue “participated meaningfully”           
          in such hearing or proceeding.4                                             
               Because respondent has not argued section 6330(c)(4) as a              
          basis for summary judgment, we decide this matter solely with               
          respect to petitioner’s ability to raise his underlying liability           
          pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(B).  Section 6330(c)(2)(B)                   

               4 Respondent has previously stated that “Because section               
          6330(c)(2)(B) explicitly applies to challenges to tax liability,            
          section 6330(c)(4) with its more stringent requirement of                   
          meaningful participation applies to non-liability issues.”                  
          Office of Chief Counsel Notice CC-2003-016 at 20 (May 29, 2003).            
          While not clear whether respondent continues to adhere to this              
          limited interpretation of sec. 6330(c)(4), respondent has not               
          argued sec. 6330(c)(4) as a basis to preclude review of the                 
          underlying liability in this case.  See Office of Chief Counsel             
          Notice CC-2006-019 at 33 (Aug. 18, 2006) (updating and replacing            
          Office of Chief Counsel Notice CC-2003-016 and merely restating             
          the language of sec. 6330(c)(4)).                                           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007