- 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