- 14 -
104, ex parte communications allegedly occurred in which the
taxpayer was referred to disparagingly as a tax protester.
Because the taxpayer relied solely on underlying frivolous
arguments, we refused to remand the case to the Appeals Office,
and we entered a decision for respondent.
Although petitioner was convicted of tax fraud for earlier
years, there is no indication that petitioner herein relies on
frivolous arguments.
For the reasons stated, we shall remand this case to
respondent’s Appeals Office. Respondent’s Appeals Office is to
identify and apply an appropriate administrative remedy to avoid
prejudice attaching to petitioner as a result of the prohibited
ex parte communications that occurred. If respondent determines
that the appropriate remedy to offer petitioner is a new CDP
hearing with respondent’s Appeals Office, all references to the
prohibited ex parte communications that occurred herein are to be
deleted from respondent’s administrative file, including any copy
of this opinion that itself would inform a new Appeals officer of
the prohibited ex parte communications.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: May 25, 2011