Drake v. Comm'r
United States Tax Court
Prior to a scheduled sec. 6330, I.R.C., hearing with P, R's settlement officer received a memorandum from R's insolvency unit advisor that questioned the credibility and motives of P's counsel in a prior court proceeding. P was not provided an opportunity to participate in the ex parte communication.
Read the full summary
Prior to a scheduled sec. 6330, I.R.C., hearing with P, R's settlement officer received a memorandum from R's insolvency unit advisor that questioned the credibility and motives of P's counsel in a prior court proceeding. P was not provided an opportunity to participate in the ex parte communication. Held: The memorandum constitutes a prohibited ex parte communication pursuant to Rev. Proc. 2000-43, 2000-2 C.B. 404, and therefore the instant case will be remanded to R's Appeals Office for a new hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Wells, Judge:
Respondent’s Office of Appeals (Appeals Office) determined that a proposed levy should be sustained against petitioner, who timely filed a petition for review of the determination. We review the determination for abuse of discretion. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioner Gregory Drake and Barbara Drake are husband and wife. At the time of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Goza v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2000
- Sego v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2000
- Drake v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2004
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hoyle v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2011
- Drake v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2007
- Indus. Investors v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2007
- Andrea M. Eichler v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2018
- Drake v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2005
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.