- 24 -
VASQUEZ, J., concurring: I agree with the majority opinion;
however, I write separately to address two additional points.
1. We Are Not Invalidating the Regulations
The majority opinion does not invalidate section 301.6320-
1(d)(2) or 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Contra J. Swift’s dissenting op. pp. 34-36. In both sections
301.6320-1(d)(2) and 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q-D6, Proced. & Admin.
Regs., asks: “How are CDP hearings conducted?” In both sections
301.6320-1(d)(2) and 301.6330-1(d)(2), A-D6, Proced. & Admin.
Regs., answers, in pertinent part:
CDP hearings are much like Collection Appeal Program
(CAP) hearings in that they are informal in nature and
do not require the Appeals officer or employee and the
taxpayer, or the taxpayer’s representative, to hold a
face-to-face meeting. A CDP hearing may, but is not
required to, consist of a face-to-face meeting, one or
more written or oral communications between an Appeals
officer or employee and the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s
representative, or some combination thereof. A
transcript or recording of any face-to-face meeting or
conversation between an Appeals officer or employee and
the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s representative is not
required. * * *
The “is not required” language contained in the regulations means
that the actions described therein are permissible but not
mandatory.
The regulations first provide that a face-to-face meeting is
not required. This, however, does not prohibit face-to-face
meetings--many section 6330 hearings are face-to-face meetings.
The regulations simply provide that it is not mandatory that a
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011