- 23 -
to set forth any position that this Court considers meritorious.3
The majority conclude without a citation to authority that
Appeals need not hold the hearing because “We do not believe that
it is either necessary or productive”. Majority op. p. 11.
The majority misapply relevant statutory text in that their
opinion conflicts directly with the explicit requirements of
section 6330(a) (taxpayers have a “right to a hearing”) and of
section 6330(b)(1) (“If the person requests a hearing under
subsection (a)(3)(B), such hearing shall be held by the Internal
Revenue Service Office of Appeals”. (Emphasis added.)).
Although the majority may be holding sub silentio that the Court
can waive this legislatively mandated right in certain cases, I
know of no grant of authority that would allow the Court do so
under the facts at hand, especially seeing that Chief Counsel has
advised Appeals that it “must” hold a face-to-face CDP hearing
with any taxpayer who requests one. See the advisory; cf.
Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 262 (2001), wherein the
Court noted that “section 6330 does not authorize the
Commissioner to waive the time restrictions imposed therein.”
3 The majority essentially find that petitioners would have
made only one argument at their CDP hearing, had one in fact been
held. I disagree. In Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35 (2000),
the taxpayer set forth in the request for a CDP hearing only the
argument that the Commissioner’s assessment was invalid for lack
of a valid summary record of assessment. At the CDP hearing, the
taxpayer advanced two additional arguments for consideration.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011