- 36 -
Respondent’s contention is inconsistent with the
aforementioned Chief Counsel Advisory. In this advisory, which
related to a form letter of the type in this case, the
Commissioner’s Chief Counsel opined that the “hearing envisioned
by this letter does not satisfy the statutory requirements” of
section 6330(b). Chief Counsel Advisory 200123060. It is worth
noting that the form letter referred to in this advisory, unlike
the letter sent to petitioners, stated that “your hearing will
consist of review of your correspondence and consideration of
information” in respondent’s possession. Id. Respondent’s
letter to petitioners (see above description), which was far less
informative, fails to meet the statutory requirements. While a
taxpayer in a section 6330 hearing does not have the rights
afforded in a formal proceeding, Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.
35 (2000), such taxpayer is entitled to know when and how the
hearing will be conducted.
The “exchange of correspondence” did not constitute the
hearing required by section 6330(b)(1). Although the majority
may disagree with my conclusion that the hearing required by
section 6330(b)(1) was not held, they may not sidestep this issue
and merely conclude that petitioners are not entitled to a
hearing.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011