- 6 -
has the right to an Appeals hearing. Under section 6330(b)(3),
the taxpayer also has the right to have the hearing conducted by
an impartial Appeals officer. Therefore, Drake is
distinguishable from this case because there was a statutory
basis for the Court’s holding. Here, we have no authority other
than the internal procedures the estate has cited, which, as
discussed, do not have a legally binding effect.3
In addition, once a taxpayer’s case is docketed in the Tax
Court, there is no provision in the procedural rules for a
taxpayer to request an Appeals conference. New Hope Servs. v.
United States, 285 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2002); Swanson v.
Commissioner, 106 T.C. 76, 99-100 (1996).
II. No Authority Supports Shifting the Burden of Proof for
Violation of the Internal Procedure Relating to the Transfer
of Cases to Appeals
Generally, determinations made by the Commissioner in a
notice of deficiency are presumed to be correct, and the estate
bears the burden of proving that those determinations are
erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933). Our Rules provide for several exceptions to the
3In addition, Rev. Proc. 2000-43, 2000-2 C.B. 404, was
promulgated in direct response to a congressional mandate in the
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,
Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 1001, 112 Stat. 689, that directed the
Commissioner to develop a plan to prohibit ex parte
communications between Appeals officers and other employees of
the Internal Revenue Service. See Drake v. Commissioner, 125
T.C. ___ (2005) (slip. op. at 13-14).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011