- 12 -
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.
Furthermore, once a taxpayer has been given a reasonable
opportunity for a hearing but has failed to avail himself or
herself of that opportunity, we have approved the making of a
determination to proceed with collection based on the Appeals
officer’s review of the case file. See, e.g., Taylor v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-25; Leineweber v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2004-17; Armstrong v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-
224; Gougler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-185; Mann v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-48. Thus, a face-to-face meeting
is not invariably required.
Regulations promulgated under section 6330 likewise
incorporate many of the foregoing concepts, as follows:
Q-D6. How are CDP hearings conducted?
A-D6. * * * CDP hearings * * * are informal in
nature and do not require the Appeals officer or
employee and the taxpayer, or the taxpayer’s
representative, to hold a face-to-face meeting. A CDP
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011