- 7 -
B. Analysis
1. Appeals Hearing
Petitioner argues that he did not receive a proper
collection hearing because his hearing was conducted by a
settlement officer, not an Appeals officer. While section
6330(c) references “appeals officer”, the remainder of section
6330 and corresponding regulations more broadly use the terms
“officer” and “employee”. Section 6330(b)(3) provides that the
collection hearing shall be “conducted by an officer or employee
who has had no prior involvement with respect to the unpaid tax”.
The regulations further explain that “A CDP hearing will be
conducted by an employee or officer of Appeals who * * * has had
no involvement with respect to the tax for the tax periods to be
covered by the hearing”. Sec. 301.6330-1(d)(1), Proced. & Admin.
Regs. Accordingly, there is no requirement that the collection
hearing be conducted by an Appeals officer; the hearing need only
be conducted by an officer or employee of the Appeals Office,
which includes a settlement officer. Rohner v. United States, 91
AFTR 2d 2003-2135 (N.D. Ohio 2003).
2. Review of Underlying Liability
Petitioner claims that he received invalid notices of
deficiency and was improperly precluded from challenging the
underlying tax liabilities at the collection hearing. In
particular, petitioner contends that the notices of deficiency
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011