OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224

 Date: 8/16/2002

 FROM: Mitchel S. Hyman, Senior Technician Reviewer, Collection, Bankruptcy & Summonses

 SUBJECT: Significant Service Center Advice: Frivolous Collection Due, Process Hearing Requests

 This responds to your request for significant advice dated March 26, 2002, in connection with a question posed by the Ogden Service Center. ISSUES 1. Should taxpayer correspondence that contains a vague request for a hearing embedded in a lengthy document comprised of frivolous arguments be considered a request for a CDP hearing if such correspondence is submitted within the time periods prescribed in I.R.C. §§ 6320(a)(3)(B) and/or 6330(a)(3)(B)? [snip] "1. In a situation when a taxpayer timely responds to the Service Center within the thirty-day time period from the issuance of a CDP notice through correspondence, other than a Form 12153, which contains frivolous arguments, and language in the correspondence can reasonably be construed as a request for a hearing, we agree that the document should be treated as a proper CDP hearing request. Every taxpayer who makes a timely CDP request is entitled to an opportunity for a hearing. All taxpayers have a statutory right to a hearing regardless of the issues raised. See sections 6320(b) and 6330(b). At the appeals hearing, the appeals officer does not need to entertain frivolous arguments raised by the taxpayer and may conclude the hearing once it is determined that the taxpayer has no relevant issues to raise. See I.R.M. 8.7.2.3.7 (2). See Generally, Tipp v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2001-272 (2001); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000). However, even if the taxpayer raises only frivolous issues at a hearing, the appeals officer must verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met, and consider whether the proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the concern that no collection action be more intrusive than necessary. Section 6330(c)(3). Thus, the fact that a taxpayer raises no significant issues has no bearing on whether he has a right to a hearing. Further, so long as the incoming document can be construed as a request for a CDP hearing, even though only vague language such as a request for an “administrative process” or an “adjudication” is used, a timely filed document should be treated as a valid request for a hearing."