- 11 -
shown that he is entitled to have the Taxpayer Advocate and/or
his congressional liaison present at a hearing under section
6330.
Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion for the
Appeals officer to proceed with a hearing based on the
administrative file and prior telephone conversations with
petitioner. Under these circumstances, the Appeals officer’s
review of these documents constituted the administrative hearing
for purposes of section 6330(b). Sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2)(A-D7),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Further, we have held that a face-to-face meeting is not
required. Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329 (2000). Recently,
we decided a factually similar case, wherein a taxpayer claimed
he was denied a hearing under section 6330. Mann v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48. In that case, the Appeals
officer scheduled a hearing and provided the taxpayer with
written notice of the hearing. Id. The taxpayer received the
notice, but did not attend the hearing and did not attempt to
reschedule the hearing. Id. We held in that case that the
taxpayer had been granted an opportunity for a hearing. Id.
The circumstances we consider here are less compelling for
petitioner than those in Mann v. Commissioner, supra. In that
case, the taxpayer was given one notice of the meeting and his
failure to appear was not equated with a failure to give him an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011