- 17 -
petitioner’s representative.15
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued.
15Petitioner also contends that the ex parte communication
between Appeals Officer Kaplan and Attorney Forbes on Oct. 27,
2003, demonstrates that Appeals Officer Kaplan did not conduct
the administrative review in good faith. In light of our holding
above, we need not decide whether the communication between
Appeals Officer Kaplan and Attorney Forbes constitutes a
prohibited ex parte communication for purposes of Rev. Proc.
2000-43, supra. We note, however, that Attorney Forbes was the
recipient of the original memorandum from Advisor Gordon which
questioned the credibility of petitioner’s counsel in the
bankruptcy proceeding.
In addition to petitioner’s contentions with respect to the
ex parte communications, petitioner contends that petitioner’s
Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated by the absence
of “recognizable” procedures to be followed in the sec. 6330
hearing; that petitioner did not receive a sec. 6330 hearing
before an impartial officer; that the proposed collection
alternative was “viable”; that Appeals Officer Kaplan’s request
that petitioner submit financial documentation without
investigating prior statements demonstrates his bias; and that
respondent did not balance the need for the efficient collection
of taxes with the legitimate concern that the collection be no
more intrusive than necessary. Because we remand the instant
case to respondent’s Appeals Office for a new hearing, we need
not consider the aforementioned contentions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Last modified: May 25, 2011