James R. Kennedy - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         
               2.  Equivalent Hearing                                                 
               In lieu of a hearing under section 6330(b), the Appeals                
          Office granted petitioner a so-called equivalent hearing.  During           
          the motions hearing in this case, the Court raised the question             
          whether the equivalent hearing might be considered a waiver by              
          respondent of the 30-day filing period in which a taxpayer must             
          file a request for an Appeals Office hearing under section                  
          6330(a)(2) and (3)(B) and (b).  Respondent argued that there was            
          no such waiver.  We agree.                                                  
               We note that section 6330 does not authorize the                       
          Commissioner to waive the time restrictions imposed therein.                
          Equally important, in Offiler v. Commissioner, supra, we                    
          indicated that, where the taxpayer failed to file a timely                  
          request for an Appeals Office hearing in respect of a notice of             
          intent to levy, an Appeals Office review of the taxpayer’s case             
          pursuant to the Collection Appeals Program did not result in a              
          determination within the meaning of section 6320 or 6330.  Upon             
          reflection, we are satisfied that the decision to grant                     
          petitioner an equivalent hearing in this case simply reflects               
          respondent’s good faith effort to further a fundamental policy              
          underlying section 6330; i.e., to provide a taxpayer with a final           
          opportunity for administrative review before proceeding with                
          enforced collection.  Consistent with the foregoing, we hold that           
          the decision to conduct an equivalent hearing did not result in a           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011