- 22 -
20, 2003, did not set forth respondent’s post-Keene policy
regarding audio recording of section 6330 hearings, and
respondent did not issue any guidance regarding the policy until
September 11, 2003.
We recognize that our Opinion in Keene was not filed until
July 8, 2003, less than 2 months before petitioner’s section 6330
hearing was convened. We also recognize that the Service must
have some reasonable period of time to evaluate the effect of an
opinion like Keene and to educate its personnel regarding its
application. Nevertheless, it is uncontested that, as of August
20, 2003, respondent had concluded that the right to record a
section 6330 hearing that we recognized in Keene is limited to
those section 6330 hearings conducted face-to-face.
This Court may remand a case to the Internal Revenue Service
for a section 6330 hearing in appropriate circumstances. See
Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001); Kelby v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-25 (If a taxpayer is not afforded a
proper opportunity for a section 6330 hearing, we can remand for
a hearing if we believe it is necessary or productive). While we
acknowledge that petitioner was offered a face-to-face hearing
and rejected it in favor of a telephone hearing, we also
recognize that petitioner made his decision before Keene was
released and before respondent had issued any administrative
guidance regarding its post-Keene position. In light of Keene
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