- 11 -
held the hearing with petitioner as “Jose Gonzales”, and not
Carol Berger. Petitioner’s memorandum also indicates that
“Petitioner has an anxiety disorder and suffers from depression
and so could not effectively represent herself at a CDP ‘hear-
ing,’ especially an ersatz one, conducted over the telephone.”
Appeals Officer Carol Berger held a face-to-face hearing, and not
a hearing conducted over the telephone, with petitioner on
February 12, 2001. Moreover, there is no suggestion in the
record that petitioner was suffering from any kind of anxiety
disorder or depression at that hearing.4 A final illustration
that petitioner’s memorandum is a document that was used in
another context and that is not pertinent or relevant to the
instant case is the reference in that memorandum to taxable years
that are not involved in the instant case and to other informa-
tion that is inapplicable to this case.
At the Court’s hearing on petitioner’s motion, petitioner
testified that he did not have an Appeals Office hearing. In
support of that position, petitioner further testified that the
Appeals Officer did not discuss with him the issues that he
wanted to raise, such as what law makes him liable for tax, how
respondent calculated his tax liability for each of the years
1994 and 1996, and similar matters.
4At the Court’s hearing on petitioner’s motion, petitioner
did not appear to the Court to have any kind of disorder whatso-
ever, whether due to anxiety, depression, or any other cause.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011