Bradley W. Bean - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
               Petitioner received statutory notices of deficiency for the            
          years in issue, and thus his underlying tax liability is not                
          properly at issue.  Accordingly, we review respondent’s                     
          determination for an abuse of discretion.  See Sego v.                      
          Commissioner, supra at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181.             
               Petitioner argues that respondent abused his discretion by             
          not allowing petitioner a face-to-face 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); Ho v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-41.  Taxpayers are              
          generally entitled to a face-to-face hearing at the Appeals                 
          Office nearest their residence.  Sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A D6              
          and D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs.  Where the taxpayer declines to              
          participate in a proffered face-to-face hearing, hearings may be            
          conducted by telephone or correspondence.  Katz v. Commissioner,            
          supra at 337-338; Ho v. Commissioner, supra; sec. 301.6330-                 
          1(d)(2), Q&A-D6 and D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs.  Furthermore, once           
          the taxpayer has been given reasonable opportunity for a hearing            
          but has failed to avail himself of that opportunity, we have                
          approved the making of a determination to proceed with collection           
          based on the Commissioner’s review of the case file.  See, e.g.,            
          Ho v. Commissioner, supra; Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.               
          2004-25, affd. 130 Fed. Appx. 934 (9th Cir. 2005); Leineweber v.            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011