- 18 -
2. Whether Respondent Was Obligated To Advise Petitioner of
His Post-Keene Policy on Audio Recording Section 6330
Hearings
Alternatively, petitioner argues that respondent had an
obligation to provide petitioner with information regarding his
post-Keene policy on audio recording section 6330 hearings so
that petitioner could have made an informed decision regarding
the type of hearing to request. Respondent disagrees, arguing
that petitioner was offered a face-to-face hearing and rejected
it in favor of a telephone hearing. However, respondent offered
the face-to-face hearing, and petitioner rejected it, before we
had decided Keene. We issued our opinion in Keene on July 8,
2003, more than a month before the August 20, 2003, telephone
hearing was convened. Respondent did not advise petitioner
either before the August 20, 2003, telephone hearing or at the
beginning of the telephone hearing when petitioner renewed his
request to audio record the hearing, that petitioner could only
audio record a face-to-face hearing.
Section 6330(a)(1) requires that the Secretary provide
notice to a taxpayer of his right to a hearing before a levy is
made on the taxpayer’s property or on his right to property.
3(...continued)
to audio record collection interviews to those interviews that
take place “in-person”, and the “courts may not depart from the
statutory text because they believe some other arrangement would
better serve the legislative goals.” Herrgott v. U.S. Dist.
Court for N. Dist. of Cal. (In re Cavanaugh), 306 F.3d 726, 731-
732 (9th Cir. 2002).
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