- 7 -
was not involved in, any previous Appeals Office hearing”
concerning the taxpayer’s tax and tax periods that are the
subject of the current section 6330 proceeding. Harrell v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-271; sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D4,
Proced. & Admin. Regs. Based upon the record in the present
case, we conclude that Settlement Officer Craca was impartial.
With respect to the second element, that certain issues be
heard, in Neugebauer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-292, the
taxpayer requested that he be allowed to satisfy his outstanding
liability through an offer-in-compromise. However, he failed to
submit a properly completed Form 656, Offer in Compromise, and
the required financial information for the consideration of his
request. Accordingly, in Neugebauer v. Commissioner, supra, we
granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and
sustained the Commissioner’s determination regarding the proposed
levy as a permissible exercise of discretion.
In Vossbrinck v. Commissioner, supra, the taxpayer alleged
that he was denied a “fair hearing” under section 6330 because
the Commissioner declined to postpone the hearing for a second
time to allow taxpayer to seek a private letter ruling. We found
the taxpayer’s allegation to be without merit because the
Commissioner had postponed the hearing once before at taxpayer’s
request, and the taxpayer did not submit a request for such a
ruling until 8 days before trial and not before issuance of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011