- 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
(1989)).
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