- 17 - its determination with respect to the collection action and may hold subsequent hearings with the taxpayer. Sec. 6330(d)(2); sec. 301.6330-1(h)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. However, any subsequent hearing is not treated as a continuation of the original section 6330 hearing and, therefore, is not appealable to this Court. Sec. 301.6330-1(h)(2), Q&A-H1 and H2, Proced. & Admin. Regs. In Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001), we acknowledged that “there may be cases where taxpayers were not given a proper opportunity for an Appeals hearing, where it will be appropriate for this Court to require that an Appeals hearing be held.” Accordingly, we return a case to Appeals if we consider a rehearing “necessary or productive”.17 See id.; Moore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-1. Petitioner bases his request for a remand on the alleged agreement he had with respondent to discuss an installment agreement after resolving the limitations period issue. Without addressing the alleged agreement, respondent asserts that the proper context for any alternative collection method discussion at this point is with “appropriate IRS personnel in accordance with the normal procedures for such matters”, not at another section 6330 hearing. We find no credible evidence of an 17For an example of cases that we remanded to the Appeals Office, see Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. __ (2003), and Harrell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-271.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