- 15 -
F. Face-to-Face Hearing
At trial, petitioners raised the issue that they failed to
receive an in-person Appeals Office hearing as requested in their
Form 12153. In Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 337-338
(2000), we held that the oral and written communications between
the taxpayer and the Appeals officer constituted a section 6330
hearing and that a face-to-face meeting is not required.
Additionally, section 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin.
Regs., provides:
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 hearing may, but is not
required to, consist of a face-to-face meeting, one or
more written or oral communications between an Appeals
officer or employee and the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s
representative, or some combination thereof. * * *
After receiving petitioners’ request for a hearing,
respondent sent petitioners a letter which stated that the
Appeals Office review could be conducted by telephone, mail,
and/or personal interviews. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Whitinger
discussed petitioners’ case with Ms. Cahill via telephone.
During the telephone hearing, Mr. Whitinger continued to contend
that petitioners’ 1999 tax liability had been satisfied by the
payment of the 1999 deficiency. Ms. Cahill and Mr. Whitinger
also discussed an offer-in-compromise as a collection
alternative.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011