- 15 -
find no abuse of discretion in the Appeals officer’s
determination concerning the requirements of section
6330(c)(3)(C). See Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488 (2002).
3. Conduct of Discovery
Petitioner alleges that it was error for the Appeals officer
to fail to allow petitioner the opportunity to conduct discovery
in connection with the hearing. At the outset, we note that
there does not appear to be anything in the record to indicate
that petitioner ever attempted to conduct discovery, or that the
Appeals officer refused a request to do so. In any event, the
hearing process contemplated in section 6330 is informal and does
not require the compulsory production of documents. See Davis v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. at 41-42; Lindsay v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2001-285; Wylie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-65. Any
refusal to afford petitioner the opportunity for formal discovery
was not an abuse of discretion.
4. Spouse’s Hearing Rights
Petitioner argues that it was error for the Appeals officer
not to allow his spouse to participate in the hearing. We infer
from petitioner’s various submissions that he believes his spouse
was entitled to a hearing under section 6330 because she holds a
community property interest in any property of his that might be
subject to the proposed levy.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011