- 12 -
hearing, the case file, any other written
communications from the taxpayer (including written
communications, if any, submitted in connection with
the CDP hearing), and any notes of any oral
communications with the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s
representative. Under such circumstances, review of
those documents will constitute the CDP hearing for the
purposes of section 6330(b). [Sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2),
Q&A-D6 and D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs.]
This Court has cited the above regulatory provisions with
approval. See, e.g., Taylor v. Commissioner, supra; Leineweber
v. Commissioner, supra; Dorra v. Commissioner, supra; Gougler v.
Commissioner, supra.
With respect to the instant matter, the record reflects that
petitioner and Ms. Carmouche participated in a face-to-face
hearing on July 25, 2003. As regards petitioner’s complaints
concerning recording, on July 8, 2003, this Court issued Keene v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8, 19 (2003), in which it was held that
taxpayers are entitled, pursuant to section 7521(a)(1), to audio
record section 6330 hearings. The taxpayer in that case had
refused to proceed when denied the opportunity to record, and we
remanded the case to allow a recorded Appeals hearing. Id.
In contrast, we have distinguished, and declined to remand,
cases where the taxpayer had participated in an Appeals Office
hearing, albeit unrecorded, and where all issues raised by the
taxpayer could be properly decided from the existing record.
E.g., id. at 19-20; Frey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-87;
Durrenberger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-44; Brashear v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011