- 7 -
Appeals Officer Melick “discussed the substance of Petitioner’s
case”. Petitioner had the opportunity to submit an offer in
compromise or other documentation, respondent argues, but
petitioner chose not to avail herself of that opportunity.
Respondent also points out that hearings cannot continue
indefinitely and that the Appeals office must be able to deal
effectively with “nonresponsive taxpayers”.
In Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 338 (2000), we held
that the oral and written communications between the taxpayer and
the Appeals officer constituted a section 6320(b) hearing.4
After the Commissioner received the taxpayer’s request for a
hearing, the Commissioner sent the taxpayer a letter setting a
date for the hearing. When the taxpayer insisted that the
location of the hearing was unacceptable, the Appeals officer
held a telephone conference with the taxpayer during which they
discussed the taxable year at issue. Thereafter, the Appeals
officer sent to the taxpayer a letter stating that the Appeals
Office was not inclined to withdraw the notice of Federal tax
lien. The taxpayer did not respond, and, approximately 3 months
later, the Appeals Office issued a notice of determination. We
concluded that the telephone conference was the Appeals officer’s
attempt to accommodate the taxpayer, that the taxpayer and the
4Although sec. 6320(b) applies to hearings for Federal tax
lien filings, we extended our holding to sec. 6330 hearings. See
Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 336 n.11 (2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011