Edward H. and Anne G. Harrell - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          finalized, would provide guidance to address, in part, the                  
          directive in RRA 1998 to develop a plan to prohibit ex parte                
          communication between officers of the Appeals Office and other              
          IRS employees that appear to compromise the independence of the             
          Appeals Office.  Before issuing final guidance, the Treasury                
          Department and the IRS invited comments from the public to aid in           
          the development of this revenue procedure.  Notice 99-50, 1999-2            
          C.B. at 444, states that “The prohibition on ex parte                       
          communication will not take effect until the revenue procedure is           
          issued in final form.  In the interim, existing procedures                  
          relating to communications in the course of Appeals consideration           
          of disputes remain in effect.”                                              
               The effective date of Rev. Proc. 2000-43, 2000-2 C.B. 404,             
          which deals with ex parte communications between officers of the            
          Appeals Office and other IRS employees, by its terms is October             
          23, 2000.                                                                   
          II.  Parties’ Contentions                                                   
               Respondent contends that AO Martin was an impartial Appeals            
          officer as that term is used in section 6330(b)(3).  Respondent             
          also contends that AO Martin correctly considered                           
               (1) whether the legal and procedural requirements                      
               were met with regard to the Final Notice - Notice of                   
               Intent to Levy, (2) whether there were any valid                       
               challenges to the liability, and (3) whether the                       
               collection action balanced the need for efficient                      
               collection of taxes with * * * [petitioners’]                          
               legitimate concern that any collection action be no                    
               more intrusive than necessary.                                         

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011