- 13 -
This Court has cited the above regulatory provisions with
approval. See, e.g., Taylor v. Commissioner, supra; Leineweber
v. Commissioner, supra; Dorra v. Commissioner, supra; Gougler v.
Commissioner, supra.
With respect to the instant matter, the record reflects that
petitioner was provided with an opportunity for a face-to-face
hearing on July 24, 2003. The hearing did not proceed when
petitioner was not permitted to record the meeting. As explained
in our previous order in this case, in Keene v. Commissioner, 121
T.C. at 19, this Court held that taxpayers are entitled, pursuant
to section 7521(a)(1), to audio record section 6330 hearings.
The taxpayer in that case had refused to proceed when denied the
opportunity to record, and we remanded the case to allow a
recorded Appeals hearing. Id.
In contrast, again as noted in our October 4, 2004, order,
we have distinguished, and declined to remand, cases where the
taxpayer had participated in an Appeals Office hearing, albeit
unrecorded, and where all issues raised by the taxpayer could be
properly decided from the existing record. E.g., id. at 19-20;
Frey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-87; Durrenberger v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-44; Brashear v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-196; Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195.
Stated otherwise, cases will not be remanded to Appeals, nor
determinations otherwise invalidated, merely on account of the
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