OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224

June 25, 2002

Number: 200233001 GL-109620-02
Release Date: 8/16/2002
UILC: 6331.00-00

MEMORANDUM FOR Associate Area Counsel, Salt Lake City, CC:SB:5:SLC
FROM: Mitchel S. Hyman

Senior Technician Reviewer
Collection, Bankruptcy & Summonses
CC:PA:CBS:BR1

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)?

" 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."