- 6 -
This case was tried before our Opinion in Robinette v.
Commissioner, 123 T.C. 85 (2004). In Robinette, we held that
when reviewing the Commissioner’s determination pursuant to
section 6330, our review is not limited by the Administrative
Procedure Act, the evidence we may consider is not limited to the
administrative record, and we conduct trials de novo. See also
Holliday v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-67 (Commissioner
permitted to present documents, records, and testimony at trial
that were not part of administrative record), affd. 57 Fed. Appx.
774 (9th Cir. 2003).
2. Procedural Issue--Location of the Hearing
Petitioner argues that he was entitled to a hearing at the
Appeals Office closest to his home and the San Francisco Appeals
Office was not the closest Appeals Office to his home. If a
taxpayer receives a notice of lien or intent to levy and requests
a hearing at the Commissioner’s Appeals Office, the taxpayer must
be offered an opportunity for a hearing at the Appeals Office
closest to the taxpayer’s residence. Parker v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2004-226; see Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 335-
336 (2000); sec. 301.6320-1(d)(2), Q&A-D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Assuming arguendo that there was an Appeals Office closer to
petitioner’s home than San Francisco, California, we do not think
it is necessary or productive to remand this case to Appeals.
See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001); Kemper v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011