Dominic Calafati - Page 18

                                        - 18 -                                        
               2.  Whether Respondent Was Obligated To Advise Petitioner of           
          His Post-Keene Policy on Audio Recording Section 6330                       
               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.                

          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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011