- 10 -
a remand to Appeals in order to allow a conference to be held.
Relevant caselaw precedent and regulatory authority, however,
indicate that the circumstances here are not such as to render
remand appropriate.
Hearings conducted under sections 6320 and 6330 are informal
proceedings, not formal adjudications. Katz v. Commmissioner,
115 T.C. 329, 337 (2000); Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 41
(2000). There exists no right to subpoena witnesses or documents
in connection with these hearings. Roberts v. Commissioner, 118
T.C. 365, 372 (2002), affd. 329 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2003);
Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166-167 (2002); Davis v.
Commissioner, supra at 41-42. Taxpayers are entitled to be
offered a face-to-face hearing at the Appeals Office nearest
their residence. Where the taxpayer declines to participate in a
proffered face-to-face hearing, hearings may also be conducted
telephonically or by correspondence. Katz v. Commissioner, supra
at 337-338; Dorra v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-16; sec.
301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6 and D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Furthermore, once a taxpayer has been given a reasonable
opportunity for a hearing but has failed to avail himself or
herself of that opportunity, we have approved the making of a
determination to proceed with collection based on the Appeals
officer’s review of the case file. See, e.g., Taylor v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-25; Leineweber v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011