- 13 - further [respondent’s] mission of effectively investigating taxpayer liabilities”, id. at 996 (quoting United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707,711 (1980)), and because Congress did not provide in RRA 1998 a specific remedy for prohibited ex parte communications. Under Rev. Proc. 2000-43, sec. 3, Q&A-28 and 29, 2000-2 C.B. at 409, the availability of administrative and personnel remedies for violations of ex parte communications is acknowledged. Herein, in light of the prohibited ex parte communications that occurred, respondent’s Appeals Office should have addressed the prejudice caused by these communications by providing some administrative remedy, such as reassignment to a new Appeals officer. Respondent’s failure to do so constituted a failure on the part of respondent to give petitioner an impartial hearing and constituted an abuse of respondent’s discretion. On the facts before us in this case, remand of this case to respondent’s Appeals Office is appropriate. By remand, we allow respondent to cure the defect that occurred in petitioner’s CDP hearing in accordance with respondent’s existing administrative procedures. We acknowledge that where ex parte communications have occurred but where the taxpayer is making frivolous underlying arguments, it may not be appropriate to grant any relief to the taxpayer. For example, in Sapp v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011