Edward H. and Anne G. Harrell - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
          respect to the unpaid tax before the hearing.  See also Perez v.            
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-274.  The statute does not define             
          the meaning of the term “prior involvement”; however, the                   
          questions and answers in section 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D4,                  
          Proced. & Admin. Regs., provide that                                        
               Prior involvement by an employee or officer of Appeals                 
               includes participation or involvement in an Appeals                    
               hearing (other than a CDP hearing held under either                    
               section 6320 or section 6330) that the taxpayer may                    
               have had with respect to the tax and tax periods shown                 
               on the CDP notice.                                                     
               We agree with respondent that AO Martin was an impartial               
          officer for purposes of section 6330(b)(3).  AO Martin did not              
          participate in, and was not involved in, any previous Appeals               
          Office hearing concerning petitioners’ tax years 1991, 1992,                
          1993, and 1999.                                                             
               As stated above, AO Martin previously worked in the chain of           
          command of Appeals Chief Gretes.  AO Petrohovich also worked in             
          the chain of command of Appeals Chief Gretes.  When AO Martin               
          conducted her review of petitioners’ case, she was no longer in a           
          chain of command that included Appeals Chief Gretes.  We assume,            
          for the sake of argument, that AO Martin and AO Petrohovich were            
          members of the same Appeals Office at some point prior to AO                
          Martin’s review of petitioners’ case.                                       
               Petitioners’ contention that AO Martin is not impartial                
          because she is “a former member of the same office hearing * * *            
          [a previous] collection due process appeal and denial of * * *              

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011