- 13 -
that described his appeal rights and invited him to raise issues,
including the issues referred to in the relevant statutes. The
Appeals officer encouraged petitioner on multiple occasions to
simply raise the issues he wanted to present, noting that the
hearing was intended to be informal and no formal set of
procedures governed the hearing. Petitioner was nonresponsive
and renewed the same argument on numerous occasions throughout
the hearing. In Davis v. Commissioner, supra at 41-42, we
emphasized that the hearing process was informal, did not require
testimony under oath, and did not require the compulsory
attendance of witnesses or the production of documents. See also
Wylie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-65. The Appeals officer
did not abuse his discretion in not giving to petitioner a set of
procedures governing the hearing.
Finally, in his response to respondent’s motion for summary
judgment, petitioner suggests that the notice of determination is
invalid because the Appeals Office failed to make a proper and
complete record of the hearing. However, attached to
petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion is what petitioner
purports to be a transcription from a cassette tape recording of
the Appeals hearing. We have considered the contents of this
document. On the basis of the record, we conclude that the
hearing requirements were met and that our judicial review
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011