- 5 -
The only substantive issue that petitioner raised in this
proceeding is his entitlement to the refund for 1986. The
records that he presented in support of his claim, however,
reflect that the refund was applied to his outstanding
liabilities. The transcripts that were presented by respondent
are consistent with those records.
There may have been a missed communication between
petitioner and the Appeals officer concerning the scheduled
hearing. Petitioner’s demand about the location of the hearing,
however, was not reasonable. See Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.
329 (2000). The Appeals officer’s determination was based on the
materials in petitioner’s file and the transcripts of his
account. See sec. 301.6330-(1)(d)(2), Q&A D7, Proced. & Admin.
Regs. At trial, petitioner was unable to identify any materials
submitted by him to the Appeals officer that were not duly
considered or that would have affected the result in this case.
Under the circumstances, the absence of a face-to-face
hearing has not affected petitioner’s rights. The case may be
decided on the present record. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117
T.C. 183, 189-190 (2001). We conclude that respondent’s
determination that levy action should proceed is not erroneous.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: May 25, 2011