Opinion ID: 202515
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conduct of the Hearing

Text: 17 Murphy contends that the IRS abused its discretion in the conduct of his CDP hearing. He argues that the appeals officer acted with a clear predisposition toward an inflexible and expeditious determination of . . . the matter by declining to grant him additional extensions to file more information. 18 The relevant regulations do not provide a time period within which a CDP hearing must be concluded. Rather, they instruct the IRS to complete the hearing as expeditiously as possible under the circumstances. 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(e)(3). Thus, there is no requirement that an appeals officer wait a certain amount of time before rendering [a] determination as to a proposed levy. Clawson v. Comm'r, 87 T.C.M. (CCH) 1251, 2004 WL 870253, at  (U.S.Tax Ct. Apr.23, 2004). The reasonableness of the appeals officer's decision to terminate a CDP hearing must be determined in light of the entire context of the proceeding. See Morlino v. Comm'r, 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 168, 2005 WL 2978531 at  (U.S.Tax Ct. Aug.24, 2005). 19 Murphy's CDP hearing had been ongoing for eight months before the appeals officer concluded it. During that time, Murphy missed numerous deadlines despite repeated extensions. To the extent that his failure to meet filing deadlines was caused by illness, he was less than forthcoming with the IRS, as he refused to disclose even the nature of the illness until after the hearing had ended. 20 It is apparent that the appeals officer did not conclude the hearing because of an unyielding determination to end the matter quickly, but rather because she reasonably believed that there was little hope that Murphy would timely provide the required information. Were we to find an abuse of discretion on this record, we would transform CDP hearings from a shield against invasive government conduct into a taxpayer's tool to delay the timely collection of delinquent tax liabilities by seeking endless extensions. We will not do so. See, e.g., Carlson v. United States, 394 F.Supp.2d 321, 329-30 (D.Mass. 2005) (declining to find abuse of discretion where appeals officer declined further extensions after taxpayer missed several deadlines); Manjourides v. Comm'r, 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 396, 2005 WL 2591930, at  (U.S.Tax Ct. Oct.13, 2005) (concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in terminating CDP hearing where taxpayer failed to meet filing deadline).