- 19 -
assessment. In response to the request, the Appeals officer
wrote to them, telling them that the validity of the assessment
had been verified and instructing them, if they wished to discuss
other matters, to contact him by a date certain, or he would make
a section 6330(c)(3) determination. Petitioners failed to
contact him, and he made the specified determination.
Respondent’s position is that the exchange of correspondence
between petitioners and the Appeals officer satisfied
petitioners’ right to a section 6330(b) hearing. Respondent
argues that, by correspondence, petitioners informed the Appeals
officer of their arguments, the Appeals officer then considered
those arguments and, by correspondence, addressed them, and,
therefore, petitioners had a hearing, and the Appeals officer’s
determination should be sustained.
I agree with respondent since, within wide parameters, it is
for respondent to decide what constitutes a section 6330(b)
hearing. I disagree with the implicit holding in Meyer v.
Commissioner, supra, that an exchange of correspondence cannot
constitute a hearing. Again, the APA and cases construing it are
at the center of the relevant jurisprudence.
C. Administrative Procedure Act
1. Introduction
The conclusions I reach are that, absent a requirement in
section 6330 that a section 6330(b) hearing be “on the record” or
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011