- 9 -
However, this Court has held that once a taxpayer has been
given a reasonable opportunity for a hearing but has failed to
avail himself of that opportunity, then the Commissioner may make
a determination to proceed with collection based upon a review of
the case file. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189-
190 (2001); Carrillo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-290.
“Thus, a face-to-face meeting is not invariably required.”
Carrillo v. Commissioner, supra; see Wright v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2005-291; Gougler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-185.
In the instant case, Ms. Derrick provided petitioner an
opportunity to have a face-to-face hearing, provided that
petitioner submitted a written explanation of the relevant issues
to be discussed, Form 433-B, and other relevant documentation.
Petitioner’s written explanation failed to raise any issues
relevant to the underlying 2000 Federal corporate income tax
liability or the collection of that tax liability, providing only
that “the legitimate issues we wish to discuss are delay and
issues of mishandling of this matter”. Petitioner failed to
submit Form 433-B and the other requested documentation. The
Court concludes that petitioner was afforded a reasonable
opportunity for a face-to-face hearing but failed to avail itself
of that opportunity.
At trial, petitioner was afforded an opportunity to
identify any legitimate issues it wished to raise that could
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007