- 6 -
officer or employee and the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s
representative, or some combination thereof. * * *
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner did have an opportunity
for a “hearing” within the meaning of section 6320(b) and case
precedent and that the contention that his telephone conference
was not a “hearing” within the meaning of section 6320(b) is of
little moment since his representative, with power of attorney,
had authority to pursue or waive a hearing. Based on the
undisputed allegation of respondent, petitioner’s representative
elected a telephonic conference in lieu of one that was face-to-
face. It also appears that petitioner’s representative aired the
client’s concerns with the Appeals officer as petitioner
testified that he would not have raised any additional arguments
to the Appeals officer if given another hearing. In addition, it
would be neither necessary nor productive to remand for a hearing
in any event. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189
(2001).
In connection with the appeals consideration that was
afforded to petitioner, a collection alternative was considered,
and agreement was reached on an installment payment plan for
petitioner. The Appeals officer, however, refused to release the
Notice of Federal Tax Lien without full payment or other
arrangement to protect the Government’s priority creditor status
with respect to petitioner’s real property. See sec. 6325; cf.
sec. 6331(k), relating to levies. Petitioner has not shown
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011