- 13 -
Memo. 2003-195. Stated otherwise, cases will not be remanded to
Appeals, nor determinations otherwise invalidated, merely on
account of the lack of a recorded face-to-face hearing when to do
so is not necessary and would not be productive.4 See, e.g.,
Frey v. Commissioner, supra; Durrenberger v. Commissioner, supra;
Brashear v. Commissioner, supra; Kemper v. Commissioner, supra;
see also Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001). A
principal scenario falling short of the necessary or productive
standard exists where the taxpayers rely on frivolous or
groundless arguments consistently rejected by this and other
courts. See, e.g., Frey v. Commissioner, supra; Brashear v.
Commissioner, supra; Kemper v. Commissioner, supra.
Here, although extensive correspondence had passed between
petitioner and the Appeals Office, petitioner had continued
throughout the process to insist on his right to an in-person
interview. Accordingly, because he viewed himself as never
having been afforded the hearing he requested, the record did not
foreclose the possibility that petitioner might have raised valid
4 This standard has been consistently applied at the
judicial level in determining whether remand is warranted. At
the administrative level, existing regulations on their face
would seem generally to require that a face-to-face hearing be
offered to all requesting taxpayers. See sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2),
Q&A-D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs. The courts have not viewed
failure to so offer a hearing as grounds for remand where only
frivolous contentions are advanced by the taxpayer. Proposed
regulations parallel the judicial approach. See sec. 301.6330-
1(d)(2), Q&A-D7 and D8, Proposed Proced. & Admin. Regs., 70 Fed.
Reg. 54687 (Sept. 16, 2005).
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