- 14 -
hearing location was “almost an hour away” from West Palm Beach.
Petitioner did not, nor does he now, explain why commuting an
hour would constitute an undue burden on petitioner or his
witnesses. On the basis of the record, we cannot find support
for petitioner’s contention.
We also note that in Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. ___
(2000), we recently addressed a taxpayer’s claim that an Appeals
officer failed to afford him an Appeals hearing as envisioned by
Congress in section 6330. The taxpayer in that case argued that
any meaningful hearing required “that he be able to subpoena
witnesses and documents”. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 8). We stated
that the “nature of the administrative Appeals process does not
include the taking of testimony under oath or the compulsory
attendance of witnesses.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 11). We noted
that hearings “at the Appeals level have historically been
conducted in an informal setting” and that nothing in section
6330 or the legislative history indicated that Congress intended
to alter this format.12 Id. at ___ (slip op. at 10). Pursuant
12 In Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. ___, ___ (2000) (slip
op. at 10), we looked at Treasury regulations dealing with the
functions of the Appeals Office. We cited sec. 601.106(c),
Statement of Procedural Rules, which provides:
(c) Nature of proceedings before Appeals.
Proceedings before the Appeals are informal. Testimony
under oath is not taken, although matters alleged as
facts may be required to be submitted in the form of
affidavits, or declared to be true under the penalties
(continued...)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011