- 21 -
the Appeals officer did not advise petitioner or his
representative of respondent’s post-Keene policy prohibiting the
audio recording of section 6330 telephone hearings but permitting
the audio recording of a face-to-face hearing. Petitioner
understandably complains that respondent’s failure to inform him
of the policy deprived him of the opportunity to make an informed
decision regarding the format of his section 6330 hearing and his
right under section 7521 to audio record it.6 Petitioner states,
and respondent does not dispute, that if petitioner had known
about respondent’s policy, petitioner would have requested a
face-to-face hearing so that he could have exercised his right
under section 7521 to audio record his section 6330 hearing.
We are not aware of any Service publication or announcement
that would have put petitioner on notice of respondent’s post-
Keene policy before or at petitioner’s scheduled section 6330
hearing on August 20, 2003. The regulations in effect on August
5(...continued)
27,203, Conference and Settlement Practice, see sec. 8.6.1.2.5.,
at 27,207, Audio and Stenographic Recording of Conferences, and
sec. 8.6.1.2.5.1, at 27,208, Recording Requirements, which were
amended, effective May 13, 2004, to provide for audio recording
of all cases that have face-to-face conferences on issues that
are not deemed frivolous.
6Respondent does not allege that petitioner has asserted
only frivolous or groundless arguments in his hearing request,
nor does he contend that petitioner had no right to have a sec.
6330 face-to-face hearing. Rather, respondent contends that
petitioner was given the opportunity to have a sec. 6330 face-to-
face hearing but requested a telephone hearing instead.
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