- 15 -
II. Analysis
A. 1985
1. Appeals Hearing
The petition focuses on petitioner’s contention that he was
not afforded a “Due Process Hearing” and requests that this case
be remanded for such a hearing. Petitioner acknowledges that a
meeting between his representative and Ms. Carter took place on
June 26, 2002, but he argues that this meeting was merely for
review of documents in lieu of his FOIA request concerning the
1985 year and was not a “Due Process Hearing”. He thus does not
dispute that the June 26, 2002, meeting pertained to 1985 but
claims that it was not the hearing provided for in section 6330.
Relevant caselaw precedent and regulatory authority, however,
indicate that the circumstances here are not such as to render
remand appropriate for further consideration of 1985.
Hearings conducted under section 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 section 6330 hearings.10 Roberts v.
10 To the extent that certain of petitioner’s statements
raise the complaint that respondent failed to produce a
“certificate of assessments” for 1985 until after the petition
was filed in this case, sec. 6330 imposes no requirement that the
taxpayer be provided with such documentation. Nestor v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166-167 (2002). Furthermore, in
(continued...)
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011