- 23 -
The question in such cases usually involves the effect, if any,
that a procedural omission or error would have on the outcome or
validity of respondent’s actions. Generally, reviewing courts
have disregarded procedural omissions or errors
unless there was reliance on and prejudice to the complaining
party.
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit provided
guidance, suggesting that a balanced approach be used in applying
the rule of prejudicial error, as follows:
be cautious in assuming that the result would be the
same if an error, procedural or substantive, had not
occurred, and there may be some errors too fundamental
to disregard. But even in criminal cases involving
constitutional error, courts may ordinarily conclude
that an admitted and fully preserved error was
“harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Agency missteps
too may be disregarded where it is clear that a remand
“would accomplish nothing beyond further expense and
delay.” [Citations omitted.]
Save Our Heritage, Inc. v. FAA, 269 F.3d 49, 61-62 (1st Cir.
2001). It has been held that the party seeking judicial review
of an agency action bears the burden of demonstrating prejudice
from any error. Boyd v. United States, 121 Fed.Appx. 348, 350
(10th Cir. 2005), affg. 322 F.Supp.2d 1229 (D.N.M. 2004); DSE,
Inc. v. United States, 169 F.3d 21, 31 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
In this case respondent failed to compute the amount of
interest on three notices sent to petitioner after the extended
effective date of sections 6631 and 6751(a). In that regard,
respondent did include a telephone number that petitioner could
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007