- 5 -
In a notice of supplemental authority, the estate directs
this Court’s attention to Drake v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. ____
(2005), a case decided recently by this Court. Drake involved
judicial review of a determination under section 6330 by the IRS
to proceed with a levy. However, prior to the section 6330
hearing, the Appeals settlement officer received a memorandum
from the IRS Insolvency Unit questioning the credibility and
motives of the taxpayer’s counsel in a prior court proceeding.
The taxpayer was not provided an opportunity to participate in
communications between the Appeals officer and the Insolvency
Unit. This Court found that the memorandum violated the IRS’s
restrictions upon ex parte communications between its employees.
See Rev. Proc. 2000-43, 2000-2 C.B. 404. Accordingly, this Court
remanded remanded the case to Appeals to hold a new section 6330
hearing with an independent Appeals officer who had not received
the communications.
The estate’s reliance on Drake is misplaced. This case
involves the redetermination of a deficiency under sections 6213
and 6214, while Drake involved judicial review of a notice of
determination under section 6330. Under section 6330(b)(1), a
taxpayer who receives a prelevy notice under section 6330(a)(1)
2(...continued)
reliability because of Caceres. See Riland v. Commissioner, 79
T.C. 185 (1982). In any event, we find Heffner to be
distinguishable; the subsequent authority, although worth noting,
is not significant.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011