- 5 -
continued with your non-filer arguments.”2 The letter similarly
observed that because petitioner was “not in filing compliance”
for 1995 through 2002, collection alternatives were unavailable.
Mr. Freitag enclosed with the letter copies of Forms 4340,
Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified
Matters; copies of the cases Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.
576 (2000), and Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162 (2002); and
copies of various Internal Revenue Code sections and IRS
publications addressing tax liability and frivolous arguments.
In the second letter, Mr. Freitag dealt specifically with a
statement in petitioner’s November 10, 2003, letter that
referenced referral of his case to the IRS National Office for
“technical advice”. To the extent that petitioner’s statement
was construed as a request for such a referral, Mr. Freitag
denied the request on grounds that no issue of sufficient
complexity to meet the standards for National Office review had
been presented. Petitioner was given 10 days to respond with
further information that might justify referral.
On February 2, 2004, respondent issued to petitioner the
aforementioned Notice of Determination Concerning Collection
2 In contrast, an explanatory attachment to the subsequent
Feb. 2, 2004, notice of determination recites that petitioner had
a prior opportunity to dispute assessment and could not challenge
the underlying liability. The earlier correspondence quoted
above, corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Freitag at trial,
reflects that petitioner was not precluded from challenging his
underlying liability during the collection hearing process.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011