- 16 -
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
proferred 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,
T.C. Memo. 2004-17; Armstrong v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-
224; Gougler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-185; Mann v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48. Thus, a face-to-face meeting
is not invariably required.
Regulations promulgated under section 6330 incorporate many
of the foregoing concepts, as follows:
10(...continued)
light of the Court’s conclusions infra regarding res judicata,
petitioner would lack grounds for arguing that he was prejudiced
in raising any available issues concerning assessment validity by
the alleged delay.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011