- 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 collection
Page: 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