- 20 -
The record confirms that the hearing officer in this case
did not have any prior involvement with respect to the underlying
tax liability before the hearing. Consequently, respondent did
not abuse his discretion in determining that the section
6320(b)(3) requirement was met.
We also reject petitioner’s assignment of error alleging
that the hearing officer had prejudged the issues raised by
petitioner. Section 6320(b)(3) limits the definition of
“impartial officer” as noted above, and that definition does not
address, and arguably does not permit, a challenge to the
objectivity of the hearing officer who presides over a hearing
under sections 6320 and 6330. However, we shall assume without
deciding, for purposes of this analysis, that sections 6320 and
6330 permit a challenge in appropriate cases to a demonstrably
biased hearing officer. See secs. 6320(c), 6330(c)(2)(A) (A
person may raise at the hearing any relevant issue relating to
the proposed collection action including the enumerated issues).
We have reviewed the transcript of the hearing, and we can
see no evidence of prejudgment or bias. The hearing officer made
an effort to explain to petitioner that petitioner must
demonstrate that the filing of the nominee NFTL was not valid.
It appears that petitioner’s allegation of bias was directed at
the hearing officer’s refusal to invalidate the nominee NFTL
based on evidence that the Claremore property was titled in Alice
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011