- 8 -
Appeals officer “did in fact discuss his case over the telephone
and that the Appeals officer heard and considered * * * [the
taxpayer’s] arguments.” Id. at 337-338; see also sec. 301.6330-
1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
In the present case, petitioner has not established that
respondent abused his discretion in determining that the two
telephone conversations between Mr. Taggart and Appeals Officer
Melick constituted a section 6330 hearing. Petitioner offered no
evidence with respect to the content of the two telephone
conversations.5 Without such evidence, we have no basis upon
which to conclude that respondent improperly characterized the
two telephone conversations as a section 6330 hearing.6
Petitioner bases her arguments in this case solely on her
belief that she was not afforded the hearing that section 6330
requires. Petitioner does not address what may be the critical
element of respondent’s determination. Respondent determined
that “an offer in compromise or other alternative to collection
5In this fully stipulated case, the parties did not
stipulate regarding the content of the two telephone
conversations. Although both parties argued on brief regarding
the circumstances of the two telephone conversations, and
respondent argued that the parties “discussed the substance of
petitioner’s case”, the parties did not provide the Court with
any evidence.
6The record in this case is silent regarding the
circumstances surrounding the two telephone calls, and we cannot
conclude that respondent abused his discretion regarding the
determination that a hearing was held without some proof to the
contrary.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011