Dominic Calafati - Page 17

                                        - 17 -                                        
               Third, and most significantly, we reject petitioner’s                  
          position because, as the general and ordinary definitions of “in-           
          person” suggest, a section 6330 hearing that takes place by                 
          telephone is not a hearing where the parties, or their                      
          representatives, are within each other’s bodily presence, or “in-           
          person”.  To hold that a section 6330 telephone hearing is an               
          “in-person interview” for purposes of section 7521(a)(1),                   
          therefore, would be contrary to well-settled rules of statutory             
          construction because it would render the words “in-person” in               
          section 7521 meaningless.  Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174              
          (2001) (statute ought to be construed so that no clause,                    
          sentence, or word is rendered superfluous, void, or                         
          insignificant); Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc.,             
          412 U.S. 609, 633 (1973) (“all parts of a statute, if at all                
          possible, are to be given effect”).  For these reasons, we hold             
          that section 7521(a)(1) does not entitle petitioner to make an              
          audio recording of his section 6330 telephone hearing.3                     

               3We recognize that several of the reasons we enumerated in             
          Keene to support our holding that sec. 7521(a)(1) entitles a                
          taxpayer to audio record his sec. 6330 face-to-face hearing would           
          apply equally to a taxpayer who participates in a sec. 6330                 
          telephone hearing.  For example, a sec. 6330 telephone hearing is           
          just as integral a part of the tax collection process as a face-            
          to-face hearing, and a transcript of a section 6330 telephone               
          hearing would facilitate judicial review of a determination made            
          by the Appeals Office with respect to a proposed levy by the                
          Commissioner just as a transcript of a face-to-face hearing                 
          would.  See Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8, 17-18 (2003).                
          However, sec. 7521(a)(1) specifically limits a taxpayer’s right             

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011