Thomas Butti - Page 6

                                         -6-                                          
          activity log that he had reviewed respondent’s transcripts of               
          account for petitioner’s tax year 1989 and 1990, including Forms            
          4340, Certificates of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified            
          Matters, and concluded that respondent had followed proper                  
          administrative and procedural requirements.                                 
               The Appeals officer received and read petitioner’s May 15,             
          2002, letter on May 22, 2002.  Even though he told petitioner he            
          would reschedule the hearing at petitioner’s request, the Appeals           
          officer did not do so.  On June 4, 2002, respondent issued a                
          Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under               
          Section 6320 and/or 6330.  In it, respondent determined that                
          respondent’s collection action with respect to petitioner’s tax             
          years 1989-90 and 1999 was proper.                                          
                                       OPINION                                        
          A.   Whether Respondent Provided Petitioner an Opportunity for a            
               Hearing Under Section 6330(b)                                          
               Respondent contends that petitioner was given an opportunity           
          to have a hearing in this case.  We disagree.  The Appeals                  
          officer invited petitioner to attend a hearing and said he would            
          reschedule it if it were inconvenient for petitioner to attend.             
          Petitioner timely requested that it be rescheduled.                         
               As a result of telling petitioner he would reschedule the              
          hearing at petitioner’s request, and then not doing so, the                 
          Appeals officer denied petitioner the opportunity for a hearing             
          on the issues petitioner had identified in his request for a                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011