- 6 -
Once a taxpayer has been given an opportunity for a hearing
but fails to avail herself of that opportunity, the Appeals
officer may proceed in making a determination by reviewing the
case file. See Mann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48; sec.
301.6330-1(d)(2) Q&A-D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs. When neither
petitioner nor her representative appeared for the hearing, the
Appeals officer reviewed petitioner’s case, and considered the
sole issue raised by petitioner, that “there are egregious errors
that once corrected would mitigate the collection activity.”
Petitioner did not allege specific errors, nor did she challenge
the appropriateness of the intended method of collection or offer
a collection alternative. Also, petitioner did not raise any
other defenses to collection. After this review, respondent
issued the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection
Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330.
Petitioner does not raise the issue of whether she had an
opportunity for a hearing. Rather, petitioner asserts that she
was denied the opportunity to record the administrative hearing,
and is therefore entitled to have her case remanded for a second
hearing. Recently, in Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8, 9
(2003), we held that a taxpayer is entitled to audio record his
section 6330 hearing pursuant to section 7521(a)(1). Section
7521(a)(1) essentially provides that a taxpayer, in connection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011