- 15 -
Petitioners claim that RC Stanley had extensive involvement
with petitioners’ case at the collection phase and provided
assistance to AO Petrohovich. Petitioners argue that RC
Stanley’s communications with AO Petrohovich “jeopardized Appeals
Officer Petrohovich’s impartiality as a hearing officer, which
denied * * * [petitioners] a fair hearing and opportunity to have
a meaningful appeal of the denial of the * * * Offer in
Compromise.”
Petitioners request a new section 6330 hearing with an
impartial Appeals officer.
III. Analysis
As stated above, the parties agree that the underlying
liabilities are no longer at issue. The parties disagree about
two main points: (1) The impartiality of AO Martin, and (2)
whether AO Martin abused her discretion in determining that the
communications between AO Petrohovich and RC Stanley did not
violate petitioners’ rights.
A. Impartiality of Appeals Officer Martin
Section 6330(b)(3) provides:
(3) Impartial officer.--The hearing under this
subsection shall be conducted by an officer or employee
who has had no prior involvement with respect to the
unpaid tax specified in subsection (a)(3)(A) before the
first hearing under this section or section 6320. A
taxpayer may waive the requirement of this paragraph.
The operative terms of section 6330(b)(3) provide that
“impartial” concerns the Appeals officer’s prior involvement with
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011