- 21 -
telephone by Settlement Officer Gwenda Dumas". Nonetheless, even
if we assume, without deciding, that Mr. Gukich participated in
the conduct of petitioner's hearing, it would not be grounds for
a remand in this case, because the arguments that petitioner has
raised against the collection action are all frivolous and
groundless. Thus, we conclude that, even if Mr. Gukich's
apparently supervisory role in issuing the notice of
determination were considered "conduct" of the hearing for
purposes of section 6330(b)(3), such participation by Mr. Gukich
could not have affected the outcome of the section 6330 hearing
and was therefore harmless error.
IV. Conclusion
Petitioner raised no other issues. Because we find that the
Appeals employees' refusal to allow petitioner to challenge the
underlying tax liability and Mr. Gukich's possible participation
in the conduct of the hearing after prior involvement would
constitute harmless error, we conclude that neither requires that
this case be remanded to Appeals for a further hearing; it would
not be "necessary or productive" to do so. See Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001). Instead, we shall
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007