- 8 -
taxpayer must be offered a face-to-face interview, an acceptable
hearing can consist of an exchange of correspondence or oral
(telephonic) communications, or some combination of the two. See
also Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 334-338 (2000);
Armstrong v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-224; cf. Parker v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-226. Entries made by Mr. McNichol
in the case activity record show both an exchange of
correspondence and telephone conversations. Based on the
testimony of Mr. McNichol and the corroborating October 12, 2001,
entry in the case activity record, we believe, and find, that, on
that date, Mr. McNichol offered petitioner the opportunity for a
face-to-face interview, which she declined. We further find that
petitioner did not thereafter change her mind and request a face-
to-face interview. Petitioner testified that, at some time,
perhaps after she received a letter from Mr. McNichol dated
December 4, 2001, she telephoned him and asked to meet with him,
and he refused. Mr. McNichol testified that he recalled no such
request; indeed, he could recall no conversations with petitioner
after December 4, 2001. The case activity record shows no
communication with petitioner after December 4, 2001.
Petitioner’s testimony was inexact as to dates, and she offers
nothing to corroborate her testimony. While petitioner may have
decided at some point after initially having been contacted by
Mr. McNichol on October 12, 2001, and declining a face-to-face
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011