- 27 -
6320 and 6330 operate. Our early caselaw regarding sections 6320
and 6330 was based on similarities to tax deficiency proceedings,
not on differences. For example, in Davis v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. 35, 41-42 (2000), we concluded that Appeals Office
collection hearings under sections 6320 and 6330 should be
handled in the same manner that traditional Appeals Office
hearings involving tax deficiencies have been handled, as
follows:
Hearings at the Appeals level have historically
been conducted in an informal setting. [Citing sec.
601.106(c), Statement of Procedural Rules.]
* * * * * * *
When Congress enacted section 6330 and required
that taxpayers be given an opportunity to seek a
pre-levy hearing with Appeals, Congress was fully aware
of the existing nature and function of Appeals.
Nothing in section 6330 or the legislative history
suggests that Congress intended to alter the nature of
an Appeals hearing so as to compel the attendance or
examination of witnesses. When it enacted section
6330, Congress did not provide either Appeals or
taxpayers with statutory authority to subpoena
witnesses. The references in section 6330 to a hearing
by Appeals indicate that Congress contemplated the type
of informal administrative Appeals hearing that has
been historically conducted by Appeals and prescribed
by section 601.106(c), Statement of Procedural Rules.
The nature of the administrative Appeals process does
not include the taking of testimony under oath or the
compulsory attendance of witnesses. We therefore hold
that a hearing before Appeals pursuant to section 6330
does not include the right to subpoena witnesses.
[Citations and fn. ref. omitted.]
The regulation on which the majority opinion relies under
section 6320 is identical to the regulation under section 6330,
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007