- 18 -
B. Communications Between Respondent’s Counsel Stanley and
Appeals Officer Petrohovich2
We also agree with respondent that AO Martin did not abuse
her discretion in determining that the communications between AO
Petrohovich and RC Stanley did not violate petitioners’ rights.
RRA 1998 required that respondent develop a plan to prohibit
ex parte communications between officers of the Appeals Office
and other Internal Revenue Service employees that appear to
compromise the independence of the Appeals Office. Respondent
issued Rev. Proc. 2000-43, 2000-2 C.B. 404, to fulfill this
statutory mandate.
Petitioners are correct that Rev. Proc. 2000-43, places
limits on communications between the Appeals Office and certain
employees in the Office of Chief Counsel. Under the guidance set
forth in Rev. Proc. 2000-43, an “ex parte communication” is a
communication taking place between the Appeals Office and another
Service function without the participation of the taxpayer or the
taxpayer’s representative. Rev. Proc. 2000-43, sec. 3, Q&A-D11,
2000-2 C.B. 406, provides that
Appeals employees should not communicate ex parte
regarding an issue in a case pending before them with
2As stated above, AO Petrohovich conducted two separate
reviews of petitioners’ tax liabilities. She conducted a sec.
6330 hearing with respect to certain of petitioners’ tax years
not here at issue. She also conducted a review of the initial
denial of the Offer in Compromise. Her review of the Offer in
Compromise was not conducted pursuant to sec. 6330.
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