- 28 -
addressing the issues presented by the taxpayer and considered at
the hearing”, H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, supra at 266, 1998-3 C.B.
at 1020, and that the Court must review that determination.
7. The Advisory
The majority’s conclusion that Appeals need not hold a CDP
hearing with petitioners is inconsistent with, and unexplainably
significantly broader than, the Commissioner’s administrative
practice on this subject. In the advisory, the Chief Counsel
stated that a meeting between Chief Counsel, Appeals, and the
U.S. Department of Justice had resulted in the decision that
“Appeals would strive to grant, at a minimum, face-to-face
conferences to all requesting taxpayers.” The advisory was
generated when Las Vegas Appeals (L.V. Appeals) informed Chief
Counsel that L.V. Appeals intended to no longer schedule a
face-to-face or telephonic CDP conference when a taxpayer’s
request for a CDP hearing set forth only frivolous or
constitutional arguments. The Chief Counsel, upon consultation
with the U.S. Department of Justice and Appeals, concluded in the
advisory that the intended practice did not satisfy the statutory
requirements of section 6330. The Chief Counsel advised Appeals
(and Appeals agreed) that it had to conduct a face-to-face CDP
hearing with any taxpayer that requested such a hearing,
regardless of the matter set forth in the request, that the
manner of the hearing should be “informal”, and that the length
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011