- 18 -
In Gougler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-185, the
taxpayer was issued a notice of intent to levy and requested a
face-to-face hearing. After the taxpayer failed to appear at the
scheduled hearing, the Commissioner issued a notice of
determination sustaining the proposed levy action. In his
petition, the taxpayer argued that he had attempted to contact
the Appeals officer about the hearing. At trial, the only
substantive issue raised by the taxpayer was his entitlement to a
refund, which, according to the Government’s records, had been
applied to outstanding liabilities for other years. Id.
In sustaining the Commissioner’s determination, the Court
stated:
There may have been a missed communication between
* * * [the taxpayer] and the Appeals officer concerning
the scheduled hearing. * * * The Appeals officer’s
determination was based on the materials in * * * [the
taxpayer’s] file and the transcripts of his account.
See sec. 301.6330-(1)(d)(2), Q&A D7, Proced. & Admin.
Regs. At trial, * * * [the taxpayer] was unable to
identify any materials submitted by him to the Appeals
officer that were not duly considered or that would
have affected the result in this case.
Under the circumstances, the absence of a
face-to-face hearing has not affected * * * [the
taxpayer’s] rights. The case may be decided on the
present record. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.
183, 189-190 (2001). * * * [Id.]
Like the taxpayer in Gougler, Mr. Hunter has failed to
identify any materials submitted by him to the settlement officer
that were not duly considered or that would have affected the
outcome of this case. Although Mr. Hunter’s May 2005 letter
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011