- 22 -
These provisions of the Restructuring and Reform Act make
clear that Congress was concerned with providing taxpayers a
meaningful process, short of litigation, in which they could
resolve tax disputes with respondent. Thus, reading section
6330(c)(2)(B) in this context, it is reasonable to conclude that
Congress intended not only to address those taxpayers who were
previously provided an opportunity to litigate their liability,
but also those provided an opportunity to dispute the liability
short of litigation.
Ultimately, while it is possible to interpret section
6330(c)(2)(B) to mean that every taxpayer is entitled to one
opportunity for a precollection judicial review of an underlying
liability, we find it unlikely that this was Congress’s intent.
As we see it, if Congress had intended to preclude only those
taxpayers who previously enjoyed the opportunity for judicial
review of the underlying liability from raising the underlying
liability again in a collection review proceeding, the statute
would have been drafted to clearly so provide. The fact that
Congress chose not to use such explicit language leads us to
believe that Congress also intended to preclude taxpayers who
were previously afforded a conference with the Appeals Office
from raising the underlying liabilities again in a collection
review hearing and before this Court.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007