- 54 -
under section 6330(b) (and section 6320(b)). If the majority had
concluded, as I believe it should have, that the phrase “in-
person interview” in section 7521(a)(1) does not include a
hearing before Appeals, the Court would be at liberty in any
appropriate case under section 6330 (or section 6320), in order
to “facilitate” our review of Appeals’s determination under
section 6330(d)(1), to remand the case in order to have a
transcript of the section 6330 hearing (or section 6320 hearing).
See Mesa Oil, Inc. v. United States, 86 AFTR 2d 2000-7312, 2001-1
USTC par. 50130 (D. Colo. 2000).
The majority also states as a ground for concluding that
section 7521(a)(1) requires that a taxpayer have the right to
make an audio recording of a hearing before Appeals that
when reviewing for abuse of discretion, we generally
consider “only arguments, issues, and other matter that
were raised at the collection hearing or otherwise
brought to the attention of the Appeals Office”. * * *
Having a transcript would eliminate a possible dispute
between the parties concerning the scope of the issues
that were raised by the taxpayer in the administrative
hearing. Moreover, not having a transcript may
contravene the intent of Congress in providing for a
fair and impartial administrative hearing and may have
a negative impact on this Court’s review of the Appeals
Office determination.
Majority op. p. 16.
The foregoing rationale is another unsound basis for the
majority’s holding under section 7521(a)(1). As discussed above,
Congress could not have had in mind the hearing that it decided
to afford to taxpayers in 1998 under section 6330(b) (and section
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