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
GREGORY DRAKE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Drake v. Comm'r
No. 20454-03L
United States Tax Court
125 T.C. 201; 2005 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 29; 125 T.C. No. 9;
October 12, 2005, Filed
Drake v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 320, 2004 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 49 (2004)
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…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Goza v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2000
- Sego v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2000
- Drake v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2004
- Drake v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2005