- 11 -
where the validity of the underlying tax liability is
properly at issue, the Court will review the matter on
a de novo basis. However, where the validity of the
underlying tax liability is not properly at issue, the
Court will review the Commissioner’s administrative
determination for abuse of discretion. [Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).]
B. Analysis
1. Appeals Hearing
Hearings conducted under section 6330 are informal
proceedings, not formal adjudications. Katz v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. 329, 337 (2000); Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 41
(2000). There exists no right to subpoena witnesses or documents
in connection with section 6330 hearings. Roberts v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 365, 372 (2002), affd. 329 F.3d 1224 (11th
Cir. 2003); Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166-167 (2002);
Davis v. Commissioner, supra at 41-42. Taxpayers are entitled to
be offered a face-to-face hearing at the Appeals Office nearest
their residence. Where the taxpayer declines to participate in a
proffered face-to-face hearing, hearings may also be conducted by
telephone or correspondence. Katz v. Commissioner, supra at 337-
338; Dorra v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-16; sec. 301.6330-
1(d)(2), Q&A-D6 and D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Furthermore, once
a taxpayer has been given a reasonable opportunity for a hearing
but has failed to avail himself or herself of that opportunity,
we have approved the making of a determination to proceed with
collection based on the Appeals officer’s review of the case
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011