- 8 -
notice of determination in that case. Accordingly, we held that
the taxpayer in Vossbrinck was given a full and fair opportunity
to seek an alternative resolution of his tax liabilities.
The hearing under section 6330 need not be conducted face to
face. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, supra at 183; Armstrong v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-224. But where a taxpayer is not
afforded a proper opportunity for an Appeals hearing, the Court
can remand the case to the Appeals Office to hold a hearing if we
“believe that it is either necessary or productive”. Lunsford v.
Commissioner, supra at 189; Moore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-1; Bartschi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-268.
The facts in the present case are similar to those in
Neugebauer and Vossbrinck. Petitioner’s hearing under section
6330 was twice postponed at petitioner’s request. Respondent
initially invited petitioner to submit an offer in compromise as
early as January 24, 2002, but respondent’s invitations went
unheeded. Respondent initially requested as early as July 17,
2002, that petitioner file a Federal income tax return for 2001,
but respondent’s request also went unheeded. Indeed, petitioner
has had almost a full year to submit his offer in compromise
before the notice of determination was issued on December 30,
2002. There is no evidence that petitioner was prepared to file
an offer in compromise, even at the time of trial. Based upon
the record, we conclude that petitioner was afforded a proper
opportunity for a hearing under section 6330 and that respondent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011