- 10 -
Hearings conducted under section 6330 are informal
proceedings, not formal adjudications. Katz v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. 329, 337 (2000); Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 41
(2000); Ho v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-41. Taxpayers are
generally entitled to a face-to-face hearing at the Appeals
Office nearest their residence. Sec. 301.6320-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6
and D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Where the taxpayer declines to
participate in a proffered face-to-face hearing, hearings may be
conducted by telephone or correspondence. Katz v. Commissioner,
supra at 337-338; Ho v. Commissioner, supra; sec. 301.6320-
1(d)(2), Q&A-D6 and D7, Proced. & Admin. Regs. The Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, to which an appeal in this case
would lie, has held that a face-to-face hearing is not required
where the taxpayer’s proffered arguments are frivolous. Burnett
v. Commissioner, No. 06-60908 (5th Cir., Apr. 12, 2007).
Furthermore, once the taxpayer has been given reasonable
opportunity for a hearing but has failed to avail himself of that
opportunity, we have approved the making of a determination to
proceed with collection on the basis of the Commissioner’s review
of the case file; i.e, in the absence of any hearing. See, e.g.,
Ho v. Commissioner, supra; Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2004-25, affd. 130 Fed. Appx. 934 (9th Cir. 2005); Leineweber v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-17; Armstrong v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-224.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007