- 6 -
matters for the courts.
During the telephone conference, Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Tilley
if he wanted a face-to-face meeting. As Mr. Wilson testified: “I
asked him at the beginning of the conference whether he wanted a
face-to-face meeting. He said, Not at this time. And at the end
of the conference, I asked him if he had any questions for me,
and he did not ask for a person-to-person hearing at that time.”
Mr. Wilson also said: “Well, after I explained that if there
were no other issues, I’d be issuing a determination letter, at
which time he [Mr. Tilley] indicated it would be fine just to go
ahead and send the transcripts with the determination letter
instead of separately, or earlier.”
It is obvious from the record that Mr. Tilley and the
Appeals officer did in fact discuss the case over the telephone
and that the Appeals officer heard and considered Mr. Tilley’s
arguments. In Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 337-338
(2000), this Court held that where the taxpayer and the Appeals
officer had a telephone conference about the taxpayer’s
arguments, the taxpayer had received an Appeals hearing as
provided in section 6320(b) in the circumstances of that case.
On April 15, 1999, Mr. Wilson received another letter from
Mr. Tilley dated March 31, 1999, which was a second request for a
hearing. Mr. Tilley had sent this letter to a revenue officer
who forwarded it to Mr. Wilson. As detailed above, a telephone
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011