- 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 to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011