- 10 -
underlying tax liability is not properly at issue, the
Court will review the Commissioner’s administrative
determination for abuse of discretion. [Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).]
B. Analysis
1. Appeals Hearing
The petition emphasizes petitioner’s claim that she was
denied the collection hearing to which she was entitled and seeks
a remand to Appeals in order to allow a conference to be held.
Relevant caselaw precedent and regulatory authority, however,
indicate that the circumstances here do not render remand
appropriate.
Hearings conducted under section 6330 are informal
proceedings, not formal adjudications. Katz v. Commmissioner,
115 T.C. 329, 337 (2000); Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. at 41
There exists no right to subpoena witnesses or documents in
connection with section 6330 hearings. Roberts v. Commissioner,
118 T.C. 365, 372 (2002), affd. 329 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2003);
Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166-167 (2002); Davis v.
Commissioner, supra at 41-42. Taxpayers are entitled to be
offered a face-to-face hearing at the Appeals Office nearest
their residence. Where the taxpayer declines to participate in a
proffered face-to-face hearing, hearings may also be conducted
telephonically or by correspondence. Katz v. Commissioner, supra
at 337-338; Dorra v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-16; sec.
301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6 and D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011