- 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