- 13 -
This Court has cited the above regulatory provisions with
approval. See, e.g., Taylor v. Commissioner, supra; Leineweber
v. Commissioner, supra; Dorra v. Commissioner, supra; Gougler v.
Commissioner, supra.
With respect to the instant matter, the record reflects that
petitioner was initially offered a face-to-face hearing to be
held on December 5, 2003. When, 2 days before the scheduled
date, petitioner informed Mr. Tracy that he could not attend the
conference, Mr. Tracy offered to reschedule the in-person meeting
for the week of December 15, 2003. However, petitioner himself
elected to proceed by correspondence and agreed on a December 17,
2003, submission deadline. He then failed to provide any
information or materials, although Mr. Tracy continued to wait
for a call or facsimile for more than a week beyond the deadline.
In these circumstances, petitioner cannot now be permitted
to complain that he was improperly deprived of a sufficient
conference. He was given a reasonable opportunity for a hearing
and failed to avail himself thereof. Accordingly, a
determination made on the basis of the existing record, which
reflected only frivolous arguments on the part of petitioner, was
appropriate here. Respondent’s actions were consistent with the
requirements reflected in section 6330 and the attendant
regulations and do not provide basis for a remand.
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