- 15 -
alternative that we should remand the case to Appeals for the
discussion of collection alternatives. Specifically, petitioner
claims that he and Appeals Officer Mares made an “agreement” to
later explore the possibility of an installment agreement if we
concluded that the limitations period had not expired before
respondent’s assessment. Respondent opposes petitioner’s request
for the following reasons: (1) The issue is deemed conceded; and
(2) petitioner “is entitled to only one hearing” under section
6330. We consider each of respondent’s arguments in turn.
A. Whether Petitioner Conceded the Installment Agreement
Issue
When appealing to this Court pursuant to section 6330(d), a
taxpayer may raise in his petition any issues that he raised at
the Appeals hearing. See sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced.
& Admin. Regs. In this case, the question of an installment
agreement was raised by petitioner at the hearing in that
petitioner’s counsel expressed interest in discussing such an
agreement depending on the resolution of the limitations issue.
Respondent does not argue that the issue of an installment
agreement never came up at the hearing. Rather, respondent
argues that, because petitioner did not raise the installment
agreement issue in his petition, the issue is deemed conceded.
Respondent relies on Rule 331(b)(4), which provides that “Any
issue not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to
be conceded.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011