- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011