- 16 -
We conclude that the telephone conference was the Appeals
officer’s attempt to accommodate petitioners, that Mr. Whitinger
and the Appeals officer did in fact discuss petitioners’ case
over the telephone, and that the Appeals officer heard and
considered all of petitioners’ arguments. See Katz v.
Commissioner, supra; Dorra v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-16;
see also sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Accordingly, we find that the Appeals officer heard all of
petitioners’ arguments during the telephone hearing and that the
telephone hearing qualified as a section 6330 hearing.
G. Conclusion
Respondent has satisfied all of the requirements of section
6330 and may proceed with the proposed collection action as set
forth in the April 29, 2004, Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Last modified: May 25, 2011