- 14 -
an in person hearing”. As we understand her position, petitioner
contends that section 6330 entitled her to a formal face-to-face
hearing because there is “absolutely no doubt that Congress
intended that the Administrative Procedures Act govern [sic] (5
U.S.C. � 554 et. seq.) * * * would govern” and that therefore the
telephonic hearing that the Appeals officer offered her did not
comply with that section. We have previously held that hearings
under section 6330 are not formal adjudications. See Katz v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 337-338 (2000); Davis v. Commis-
sioner, 115 T.C. 35, 41 (2000).10 We concluded in Davis v.
Commissioner, supra, that Congress, in providing for a hearing
under section 6330, did not intend to depart from the informal
IRS Appeals Office process already provided for under section
601.106(c), Statement of Procedural Rules.11 See Katz v. Commis-
sioner, supra. We reject petitioner’s contention that section
6330 entitled her to a formal face-to-face hearing under the APA.
Although not altogether clear, petitioner may also be
10See also Barnhill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-116.
11Consistent with Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329 (2000),
Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35 (2000), respondent issued
final regulations under sec. 6330, effective on Jan. 18, 2002,
with respect to any levy occurring on or after Jan. 19, 1999,
which provide, inter alia, that the formal hearing procedures
required under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. secs.
551-559 (2000) (APA), do not apply to hearings under sec. 6330.
Sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs. See also
sec. 301.6320-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs., relating
to hearings under sec. 6320.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011