- 12 -
2. Hearing Location
Although that error is enough to force a remand, Industrial
also argues for a remand to an IRS office less than two time
zones away. It claims that the Commissioner also abused his
discretion in deciding to hold the CDP hearing in Oklahoma City
instead of somewhere closer to Santa Monica, where Industrial has
its principal place of business. The applicable regulation is
clear that a face-to-face CDP hearing is not required by the
Code. Sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs. We
also agreed in Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 337-38 (2000),
that a CDP hearing via telephone satisfies the Code’s
requirements when it is an honest attempt to accommodate a
taxpayer’s preference. But the regulation does command the
Commissioner, if a taxpayer wants a face-to-face hearing, to
offer him “a hearing at the Appeals office closest to * * * [his]
principal place of business.” Sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D7,
Proced. & Admin. Regs.5
4(...continued)
particular issue, we can leave any analysis of a different
approach to another day. At least until then, we must continue
to follow our decision in Drake.
5 Section 301.6330-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs., has since been
changed to enable the IRS in some situations to avoid having to
schedule face-to-face hearings at the closest Appeals Office.
See T.D. 9291, 2006-46 I.R.B. 887. However, those changes do not
apply to this case.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007