- 4 -
Deficiency; (3) There was a failure to generate an
assessment list; (4) There was a failure of the Commissioner
to certify and transmit the assessment list; (5) There was a
failure to record the assessment; (6) failure to provide
record of assessment; and, (7) failure to send Notice of
Assessment.
Petitioner later notified respondent that he intended to
audio record the administrative hearing. Respondent’s Appeals
officer advised petitioner that the hearing could not be
recorded.
On September 17, 2003, petitioner attempted to record the
scheduled administrative hearing at respondent’s offices in
Phoenix. The Appeals officer again informed petitioner that the
hearing could not be recorded but offered to conduct the hearing
without recording. Petitioner declined, and the hearing ended.
On October 2, 2003, respondent issued to petitioner a Notice
of Determination in which the Appeals officer recommended
proceeding with the lien.
Discussion
On November 6, 2003, petitioner filed a Petition for Lien or
Levy Action under section 6330(d). Citing this Court’s holding
in Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8 (2003), petitioner contends
that respondent’s determination was an abuse of discretion
because the Appeals officer did not permit an audio recording of
the administrative hearing. Petitioner raised a similar
contention in response to a motion for summary judgment filed by
respondent before trial. For reasons stated in the Court’s order
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011