- 9 -
Petitioner is therefore prohibited from challenging his
underlying tax liabilities for 1990 through 1993.
With respect to the validity of the section 6330 hearing,
petitioner argues that respondent improperly denied him a
face-to-face section 6330 hearing. We disagree. Although a
hearing may consist of a face-to-face meeting, a proper section
6330 hearing may also occur by telephone or by correspondence
under certain circumstances. See Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.
329, 337-338 (2000); sec. 301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. &
Admin. Regs. Petitioner was offered a telephone hearing but
chose not to participate. In addition, petitioner was offered a
face-to-face hearing if he would identify legitimate, relevant,
and nonfrivolous issues he intended to discuss. Petitioner did
not respond. The only correspondence petitioner sent respondent
after the Form 12153 hearing request indicated that petitioner no
longer wanted a section 6330 hearing for 1990 through 1993.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that it is neither
necessary nor productive to remand this case for a face-to-face
hearing. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, supra.
If a taxpayer has been given a reasonable opportunity for a
hearing and has failed to avail himself of that opportunity, this
Court has approved the Commissioner’s determination to proceed
with collection on the basis of an Appeals officer’s review of
the case file. See, e.g., Bean v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008