Robert L. Perkins - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         
          of the liability outside section 6330 before offering the section           
          6330 hearing.  If the requested section 6330 hearing were offered           
          first, a liability otherwise subject to challenge under section             
          6330(c)(2)(B) would also be subject to judicial review under                
          section 6330(d) upon the taxpayer's timely appeal.  Conversely,             
          if Appeals consideration outside section 6330 proceeds first, the           
          consideration by Appeals operates to preclude a challenge to the            
          underlying liability in the 6330 hearing and any subsequent                 
          judicial review.  See Lewis v. Commissioner, supra at 60-61.                
          That is precisely the position taken by respondent in this case.            
               In enacting what is commonly referred to as the "collection            
          due process" provisions of sections 6330 and 6320, Congress                 
          intended to confer new rights upon taxpayers when the                       
          Commissioner initiated collection actions against them,                     
          including, in designated circumstances, judicial review of the              
          underlying tax liability.  Montgomery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C.             
          at 13 (Laro, J., concurring); Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35,           
          37 (2000); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 495 (2000);               
          Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 179-180.  To construe section             
          6330(c)(2)(B) to preclude a challenge to, and judicial review of,           
          the underlying tax liability in the circumstances of this case              
          would circumscribe the right to judicial review that Congress               
          intended to extend to taxpayers against whom collection actions             
          have been initiated.  We accordingly hold that petitioner did not           







Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007