- 10 - parte communications and are prohibited under RRA 1998 sec. 1001(a)(4). Rev. Proc. 2000-43, supra, specifies that respondent’s Appeals officers should not communicate with respondent’s revenue agents and officers if the communications would, or would appear to, compromise the independent judgment of the Appeals Office. Id. sec. 3, Q&A-29, 2000-2 C.B. at 409. An exception is provided to the prohibited ex parte communications rule of Rev. Proc. 2000-43, supra, for communications that relate only to administrative, ministerial, or minor procedural matters. Communications between an Appeals officer and a revenue officer about the location of missing file documents are listed as an example of ex parte communications that would be allowed. Id. sec. 3, Q&A-5. In Drake v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 201, 210 (2005), we remanded a CDP case to respondent’s Appeals Office because of documents that were regarded by the Court as ex parte and prohibited. Herein, the Appeals officer and the offer specialist should have carefully restricted the communications they had with the revenue officers relating to the collection of petitioner’s taxes to mere administrative, ministerial, or minor procedural matters. The suggestions by the California and Oregon revenue officers to the Appeals officer and to the offer specialist toPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011