- 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 letterPage: 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