- 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