- 11 -
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
Hearings conducted under section 6330 are informal
proceedings, not formal adjudications. Katz v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. 329, 337 (2000); Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 41
(2000). 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.
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,
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