- 15 - for 1989, to judgment. Furthermore, the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata bar petitioners from relitigating this same issue, which was litigated in District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. See Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948); FMC Corp. and Subs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001- 298. Accordingly, we hold that petitioners’ underlying tax liability for 1989 is not properly before us. We therefore review respondent’s determination to proceed with the proposed levy for an abuse of discretion. Petitioners contend that respondent’s Appeals officer, abused her discretion by failing to schedule a face-to-face conference with petitioners. We disagree. An in person hearing is not automatically guaranteed by section 6330. Hearings at the appeals level have historically been informal. Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 41 (2000). Hearings may be held in person, but they may also be conducted by telephone or by correspondence. Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 337-338 (2000); Dorra v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-16. This Court has held that it is not an abuse of discretion if an Appeals officer determines that a face-to-face hearing would not be productive based on a taxpayer’s frivolous or groundless arguments. Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001); Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195. We have also held that it is not an abuse of discretion to proceed with collectionPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011