-4-
administrative determination for abuse of discretion. See id.;
see also Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Petitioners do not dispute the underlying liabilities but
contend that section 6330(c)(1) requires the production of Form
23 C. This Court previously has addressed such a contention,
holding that “it was not an abuse of discretion for Appeals to
rely on a Form 4340 * * * for the purpose of complying with
section 6330(c)(1).” Davis v. Commissioner, supra at 41.
Accordingly, respondent’s administrative determination was not an
abuse of discretion.
Petitioners’ representative stated that he did not
participate in the scheduled hearing because he had not received
responses to the interrogatories. Cf. id. (stating that section
6330 does not provide authority to subpoena documents or
witnesses). We conclude that petitioners acquiesced to the
telephone format, yet chose not to participate. In Katz v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 331-332 (2000), an Appeals officer
scheduled a hearing at an Appeals Office, and the taxpayer
refused to attend because the location was inconvenient. We held
that the parties’ subsequent telephone conversation, in which the
Appeals officer heard and considered the taxpayer’s arguments,
met the requirements of a section 6320(b) hearing. See id. at
337-338. We have no evidence as to whether respondent offered to
hold a face-to-face hearing. We note that, at trial, petitioners
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011