Gregory Drake - Page 28

                                                 - 28 -                                                    
            A.    Whether the Initial Section 6330 Hearing Was Conducted in                                
                  Good Faith.                                                                              
                  In response to the original notice of determination,                                     
            petitioner contended that Settlement Officer O’Shea and Appeals                                
            Officer Kaplan were biased, were not impartial, and did not                                    
            conduct the administrative review in good faith.16  Since the                                  
            completion of the initial hearing, however, petitioner                                         
            participated in the hearing on remand with Appeals Officer                                     
            Kramer, who had no prior involvement with petitioner and had                                   
            received no communication relating to the credibility of                                       
            petitioner or petitioner’s representative.  In light of the                                    
            hearing on remand, we are satisfied that petitioner received a                                 

                  15(...continued)                                                                         
            2002, constituted a prohibited ex parte communication, we did not                              
            decide petitioner’s remaining contentions in that opinion.                                     
                  16Although the aforementioned contentions appear redundant,                              
            petitioner’s briefs set forth separate arguments with respect to                               
            each.  Petitioner alleged the following facts in support of his                                
            contentions:  (1) Settlement Officer O’Shea and Advisor Gordon                                 
            engaged in an ex parte communication on Jan. 30, 2002; (2)                                     
            Appeals Officer Kaplan and Attorney Forbes engaged in an ex parte                              
            communication on Oct. 27, 2003; (3) Appeals Officer Kaplan                                     
            requested that petitioner submit updated financial documentation                               
            without investigating financial statements previously submitted                                
            by petitioner; (4) Appeals Officer Kaplan simultaneously                                       
            requested that petitioner submit financial information and that                                
            petitioner increase his offer-in-compromise; (5) Appeals Officer                               
            Kaplan determined that the transfer of petitioner’s home to                                    
            Darren Drake appeared questionable even though Appeals Officer                                 
            Kaplan had no experience and performed no research with respect                                
            to bankruptcy foreclosure issues; and (6) respondent’s Appeals                                 
            Office authorized Settlement Officer O’Shea and Appeals Officer                                
            Kaplan to both conduct the sec. 6330 hearing and to negotiate an                               
            offer-in-compromise.                                                                           





Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011