- 5 -
file the lien and proceed with collection. See Davis v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000).
Under section 6320(b), if a taxpayer “requests a hearing
under subsection (a)(3)(B) [of section 6320], such hearing shall
be held by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals.” We
have decided that, under appropriate circumstances, the hearing
envisioned in sections 6320(b) and 6330(b) may be conducted
telephonically. See Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 334-339
(2000). In that case we concluded that the Appeals officer heard
and considered all of petitioner’s arguments during a telephone
conference. Id. at 337-338.
In this case, we also conclude that the Appeals officer
heard and considered all of petitioner’s arguments. In his
response to respondent’s motion, petitioner stated that, if given
another hearing, there is nothing more that he would argue to the
Appeals officer. Petitioner and his representative communicated
in writing and by telephone with respondent’s Appeals officer.
In spite of this, petitioner contends that there was no “hearing”
within the meaning of the statute. This contention is also
contrary to the regulations under section 301.6320-1(d)(2) A-D6
of the Procedural and Administrative Regs., which provide that
CDP hearings * * * are informal in nature and do not
require the Appeals officer or employee and the
taxpayer, or the taxpayer’s representative, to hold a
face-to-face meeting. A CDP hearing may, but is not
required to, consist of a face-to-face meeting, one or
more written or oral communications between an Appeals
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011