- 13 -
communication pursuant to Rev. Proc. 2000-43, 2000-2 C.B. 404,
which may have damaged petitioner’s credibility before Settlement
Officer O’Shea and Appeals Officer Kaplan. Accordingly, we held
that Appeals Officer Kaplan abused his discretion in sustaining
the proposed collection action. We retained jurisdiction of the
case and remanded it to respondent’s Appeals Office for a new
section 6330 hearing with an independent Appeals officer who had
received no communication relating to the credibility of
petitioner or petitioner’s representative. Because we remanded
the case for a new hearing, we did not address petitioner’s
remaining contentions, which are discussed below.
V. Petitioner’s Motion for Litigation Costs
On November 17, 2005, petitioner filed a motion for
litigation costs and fees pursuant to section 7430 and Rule 231.
With the motion, petitioner submitted the affidavit of Mr. Burke,
the affidavit of Mr. Burke’s associate Melissa Halbig, and
related billing records. On December 22, 2005, respondent filed
a response to petitioner’s motion for litigation costs and fees.
VI. Barbara Drake’s Request for Section 6015 Relief
On August 30, 2000, respondent received Barbara Drake’s
aforementioned request for section 6015 relief. Respondent
denied Barbara Drake’s request for section 6015 relief on
February 5, 2002, and she appealed the determination to
respondent’s Appeals Office. The Appeals Office assigned to the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011