- 18 -
determination and, if appropriate, set it aside or take other
appropriate action and, if necessary, enjoin any improper
collection action by respondent.
II. Section 6330(b) Hearing
A. Introduction
In Meyer v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 417 (2000), we dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the Appeals officer
had made an invalid determination because he had not provided the
taxpayers with an opportunity for a hearing “either in person or
by telephone” prior to making that determination. Id. at 422-
423. Implicit in our disposition of Meyer is some notion of what
is normative for a hearing. Since we found that the Appeals
officer had communicated with the taxpayers prior to making his
determination, id. at 418, it seems safe to conclude that such
communication was in writing and that an implicit holding in
Meyer is that (at least without the taxpayer’s agreement) an
exchange of correspondence does not constitute a hearing.
I believe that we are in error when we dictate to respondent
the particulars of a section 6330(b) hearing.
B. The Instant Case
In the instant case, the majority finds the following: On
account of respondent’s issuing a notice of intent to levy,
petitioners requested a section 6330(b) hearing. By the request,
petitioners raised as an issue only the validity of the
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011