- 6 -
On October 14, 2003, the petition contesting the notice of
determination was filed. The only error petitioner alleged was
that the section 6330 hearing was not conducted in accordance
with section 7521(a)(1). On December 4, 2003, respondent’s
answer, in which he denied he erred as alleged, was filed.
Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment.
In his motion, petitioner asserts there is no dispute as to any
material facts and that he is entitled to audio record his
section 6330 telephone hearing as a matter of law. We held a
hearing on petitioner’s motion. Both petitioner and respondent
appeared and were heard. At the hearing, petitioner argued, in
the alternative, that he should have received some advance notice
of the fact that if he had requested a face-to-face meeting, then
he would have been allowed to record it. Respondent’s position
is that section 7521(a)(1), which authorizes taxpayers to record
“in-person interviews”, is not applicable to section 6330
telephone hearings and that respondent had no obligation to
notify petitioner of his policy regarding the recording of
section 6330 hearings.
Discussion
A. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is a procedure designed to expedite
litigation and avoid unnecessary, time-consuming, and expensive
trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681
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