- 18 -
adequately supported by the record. Petitioners allege in their
petition that they want to meet with Appeals in person and that
the failure of Appeals to schedule a face-to-face conference has
deprived them of the ability to present their case. The petition
prays that the Court direct Appeals to “Hold a meaningful due
process hearing as required by law”.
The fact that the hearing requirement is at issue is also
seen clearly from the record and from the posttrial brief of
respondent, who, like Judge Foley, but unlike the majority, has
been involved in this judicial proceeding since its start. But
for an argument for sanctions under section 6673, the sole
argument that respondent advances on brief concerns the hearing
requirement.1 Although petitioners failed to file a posttrial
brief, their counsel, Ms. Griggs, stated at trial that “by not
having a hearing date they [petitioners] were not afforded an
adequate right to have a hearing.” Tr. at 4. Further, she
stated: “I do not believe that they’ve been afforded due process
proceedings in this [case by virtue of the lack of a CDP
hearing], and I believe they should be allowed to have a
hearing.” Id. at 5. The Court even clarified for the parties
that the hearing requirement remained at issue by stating: “All
1 Respondent’s specific argument on brief is that Appeals
need not hold a CDP hearing face-to-face and that the
correspondence between Appeals and petitioners constituted the
requisite hearing. Respondent’s brief predates the advisory and
is inconsistent with it.
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