Ronald Byers v. Commissioner of IRS
408 U.S. App. D.C. 137
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Ronald Byers petitions for review of IRS-CDP levy decisions that enforced overdue taxes for 1999–2002 (tax years at issue).
- Tax Court affirmed the levy; year 2003 assessment was abated and later dismissed as moot.
- Byers resides in Minnesota; he previously challenged deficiency determinations in Tax Court and unsuccessfully sought circuit review.
- Venue dispute: whether DC Circuit is proper under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(b)(1) or whether transfer to the Eighth Circuit is appropriate.
- District court-style de novo standard applies on questions of law and summary-judgment reviews; underlying tax merits are not at issue on the CDP appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue for CDP appeal under § 7482(b)(1) | Byers argues DC Circuit proper because not seeking redetermination. | Commissioner contends venue lies in Eighth Circuit under § 7482(b)(1)(A). | DC Circuit proper; § 7482(b)(2) not invoked; no transfer required. |
| Ex parte communications in CDP hearing | Settlement Officer engaged in improper ex parte communications. | Record shows communications were administrative/ministerial and proper. | No reversible error; no evidence of improper ex parte communications. |
| Appointments Clause challenge and recusal/recall of senior judge | Senior Judge Swift’s recall violates Appointments Clause; recusal requested. | Issue untimely; recall authority constitutional; no abuse of discretion. | Untimely; Chenery issue not reached. |
| Mootness of 2003 levy and its relation to the record | 2003 record must be considered; mootness inappropriate. | 2003 levy abated; no levy action remains; moot. | 2003 claim properly dismissed as moot; levy upheld on 1999–2002 amounts. |
Key Cases Cited
- SEC v. Johnson, 650 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (de novo venue and statutory interpretation standards apply)
- Andantech L.L.C. v. Comm’r, 331 F.3d 972 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (de novo review of Tax Court rulings when appropriate)
- Tucker v. Comm’r, 676 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review in CDP appeals)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (statutory text controls unless absurd)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1943) (Chenery doctrine; courts confined to grounds relied upon by agency)
- Chenery Corp. v. SEC, 332 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1947) (affirming limitation on post hoc justification)
- Cerand & Co., Inc. v. Comm’r, 254 F.3d 258 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (timeliness limits consideration of new legal theories)