- 16 -
face-to-face”. Id. at 16-17 (emphasis added). Consequently, our
analysis in Keene does not show that we considered the format of
the section 6330 hearing irrelevant to our holding. Instead, our
analysis in Keene reveals that for purposes of our holding, we
only considered a face-to-face section 6330 hearing. See Wright
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-291 (“In Keene * * *, this Court
held that taxpayers are entitled, pursuant to section 7521(a)(1),
to audio record a face-to-face section 6330 hearing.” (Emphasis
added.)).
Second, petitioner’s interpretation of Keene is undermined
by our application of Keene since we issued the Opinion. We have
never applied our holding in Keene that a taxpayer is entitled to
audio record his section 6330 hearing to anything other than a
face-to-face meeting. See, e.g., Meyer v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2005-81, affd. without published opinion 98 AFTR 2d 2006-
6378, 2006-2 USTC par. 50539 (9th Cir., Aug. 31, 2006); Taylor v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-74; Frey v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-87; see also Yazzie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-
233 (the Court described the taxpayer’s section 6330 face-to-face
hearing as an “in-person conference”), affd. 153 Fed. Appx. 456
(9th Cir. 2005); Johnston v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-224
(the Court again described the taxpayer’s section 6330 face-to-
face hearing as an “in-person conference”), affd. 153 Fed. Appx.
451 (9th Cir. 2005).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011