Joseph E. Lewis - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
               In evaluating the validity of section 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-           
          E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs., we first consider whether Congress              
          has spoken directly to the precise question at issue.  In                   
          answering this question, we are instructed not to confine our               
          examination to a particular statutory provision in isolation.               
          Square D Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 299, 308 (2002)              
          (citing FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120,              
          133 (2000)), affd. 438 F.3d 739 (7th  Cir. 2006).  The meaning,             
          or ambiguity, of certain words or phrases may become evident only           
          when placed in context.  FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,           
          supra at 132-133 (citing Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118                
          (1994)).  It is a “‘fundamental canon of statutory construction             
          that the words of a statute must be read in their context and               
          with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.’”               
          Id. (quoting Davis v. Mich. Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809            
               Neither the Restructuring and Reform Act nor the Code                  
          defines what is meant by “otherwise have an opportunity to                  
          dispute” a tax liability.  Further, a fair reading of the section           
          suggests different possible meanings.  On the one hand, it can be           
          read to mean an opportunity to challenge the underlying liability           
          in a forum ultimately subject to judicial review.  On the other             
          hand, it can be read to include challenges subject to judicial              
          review as well as challenges heard by respondent’s Appeals Office           

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007