- 53 -
As another reason for concluding that the phrase “in-person
interview” in section 7521(a)(1) includes a hearing before the
Appeals Office under section 6330(b) (and section 6320(b)), the
majority states:
respondent’s interpretation of section 7521(a)(1) would
complicate judicial review of the determination made by
the Appeals Office with respect to the Commissioner’s
proposed levy or filing of the notice of Federal tax
lien. For example, when a taxpayer’s underlying tax
liability is not properly at issue in the
administrative hearing, we review the Appeals Office’s
determination for abuse of discretion. * * * Having a
transcript of the administrative hearing would
certainly facilitate that review. * * *
Majority op. pp. 15-16.
The foregoing rationale for holding that section 7521(a)(1)
requires the IRS to permit a taxpayer to make an audio recording
of an Appeals hearing under section 6330(b) (and section 6320(b))
is not sound. Although having a transcript of the administrative
hearing under section 6630(b) (and section 6320(b)) might
“facilitate” in an appropriate case review of the Appeals’
determination made under section 6330(c)(3), it is a non sequitur
to conclude that, therefore, section 7521(a)(1) requires that a
taxpayer have the right to make an audio recording of a hearing
6(...continued)
which event our standard of review is de novo. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). Regardless of whether our standard of
review in a proposed levy (or lien) case is abuse of discretion
or de novo, we typically do not go behind the notice of
determination.
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011