- 25 -
(ii) Section 6320 Hearing in Person
Petitioner argued Appeals Officer Hirsch did not properly
conduct the section 6320 hearing in person.
Section 6320(c) requires that the section 6320 hearing be
conducted under the provisions of section 6330(c), (d), and (e).
The hearing under section 6330 need not be conducted face to
face. See sec. 301.6320-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6 and D7, Proced. & Admin.
Regs; see also Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183 (2001);
Day v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-30; Armstrong v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-224.
Respondent was not required to provide petitioner with a
face-to-face section 6320 hearing. There is no evidence in the
record petitioner requested such a hearing. Petitioner agreed
the telephone hearing constituted his section 6320 hearing and
did not object to the holding of the hearing by telephone.
On the basis of the entire record and applicable law, we
conclude that the Appeals officer properly conducted petitioner’s
section 6320 hearing under section 6320(c).
(iii) Appeal of Rejection of Installment Agreement
Petitioner argues that Revenue Officer Angotta prevented him
from filing an administrative appeal of the denial of his
installment agreement request, and that respondent’s
consideration of the appeal would have precluded respondent from
filing the NFTL or levying against his property.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011