Determining the Meaning of a Meaningful Collection Due Process Hearing: Katz v.Commissioner
Pamela H. Kesner
In Katz v. Commissioner, the Tax Court held that a taxpayer had the opportunity for, and received, a meaningful Appeals hearing within sections 6320 and 6330 and that the Service had a valid right to collect tax previously assessed against the taxpayer. The court rejected the taxpayer’s contention that he was denied the opportunity for a Collection Due Process Appeals hearing, and the right to examine witnesses, because he gave no explanation why his one-hour commute to the hearing location was an undue burden on him or witnesses. The court held that a Collection Due Process hearing to contest the Service’s determination and lien through telephone conversations with an Appeals officer was an adequate hearing and that the Appeals officer did not abuse his discretion in upholding the interest imposed on the assessed tax.Part I of this Note discusses the Code’s procedures for allowing taxpayers to be heard when threatened with collection actions, and states the facts of Katz v. Commissioner. Part II summarizes the Tax Court’s decision and reasoning. Part III examines the congressional intent of the enabling legislation, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (“RRA”), and argues the Tax Court’s clarification of the standards falls short of the rights Congress intended to convey to taxpayers in Collection Due Process hearings.
BACK TO CONTENTS PAGE