- 7 -
that they would proceed with the hearing by telephone. The
settlement officer’s notes of the telephone conversation
indicate, among other things, that Mr. Paul stated that he was at
a disadvantage because he had not had enough time to prepare for
the hearing; that the settlement officer reminded Mr. Paul that a
substantial amount of time had already been afforded him for this
purpose; and that the settlement officer reiterated that
petitioner’s arguments were frivolous. Petitioner’s version of
the telephone call is that very shortly after the parties greeted
one another the settlement officer terminated the conversation.
Both parties agree that at some point in their telephone
conversation the settlement officer inquired whether petitioner
was making an audio recording of the hearing. Petitioner and his
representative confirmed that they were. The settlement officer
explained to petitioner and Mr. Paul that while section 7521
permits audio recordings, advance notice of the intent to make
such a recording must be given and that he had received none.
Petitioner offered to turn off the recorder, but the settlement
officer was not confident that he would be able to verify whether
the recorder was in fact turned off and therefore ended the
hearing.
Respondent’s Appeals Office sustained the lien and issued
the notice of determination on January 6, 2005. Petitioner filed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007