- 23 -
Thus, in view of the statutory scheme as a whole, as well as
the Restructuring and Reform Act specifically, we find
respondent’s interpretation of section 6330(c)(2)(B) to be
reasonable. National Muffler Dealers Association v. United
States, 440 U.S. at 476-477. A conference with the Appeals
Office provides a taxpayer a meaningful opportunity to dispute an
underlying tax liability.9
II. Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment may be granted where there is no genuine
issue of any material fact and a decision may be entered as a
matter of law. Rule 121(a) and (b); see Sundstrand Corp. v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th
Cir. 1994). The moving party bears the burden of proving that
there is no genuine issue of material fact, and factual
inferences will be read in the manner most favorable to the party
opposing summary judgment. Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
812, 821 (1985).
We are satisfied that no genuine issues of material fact
exist and judgment as a matter of law is appropriate. Petitioner
9We reserve judgment today on whether an offer for a
conference with Appeals is sufficient (and if so, what
information would be required to be included in such an offer) to
preclude subsequent collection review consideration if the
taxpayer declines the offer without participating in such a
conference. We note, however, that we read sec. 6330(c)(2)(B) to
allow a taxpayer who has had neither a conference with Appeals
nor an opportunity for a conference with Appeals to raise the
underlying liability in a collection review proceeding before
Appeals and 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