- 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