Edward W. Clough - Page 11
- 11 -
present any credible evidence that notice and demand was not
issued as indicated on the Forms 4340. Consequently, we conclude
that notices and demands were properly issued to petitioner with
respect to the 1996-98 liabilities.
3. Section 6330 Hearing
Lastly, petitioner argues that he was denied a proper
section 6330 hearing. Petitioner’s principal argument is that
respondent improperly denied him a face-to-face section 6330
hearing. We have held repeatedly that because a hearing
conducted under section 6330 is an informal proceeding instead of
a formal adjudication, a face-to-face hearing is not mandatory.
See Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 337 (2000); Davis v.
Commissioner, supra at 41. Accordingly, while a hearing may take
the form of a face-to-face meeting, a proper section 6330 hearing
may also be conducted by telephone or written correspondence.
Katz v. Commissioner, supra at 337-338; sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2),
Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Once a taxpayer is given a
reasonable opportunity for a hearing and fails to avail himself
of that opportunity, this Court has sustained respondent’s
determination to proceed with collection based upon an Appeals
officer’s review of the case file. See, e.g., Bean v.
245, affd. 72 Fed. Appx. 729 (9th Cir. 2003).
Page: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Last modified: November 10, 2007