Joseph D. and Wanda S. Lunsford - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         
               It is therefore deemed that the proposed collection                    
               action balances the need for efficient collection of                   
               the taxes with the concern that the collection action                  
               be no more intrusive than necessary.  [Goza v.                         
               Commissioner, supra at 178.]                                           
          The taxpayer raised the same issues in his petition which                   
          included the following statement:  “Petitioner reserves all                 
          rights under the federal Constitution and common law, the filing            
          of this petition is not intended as a waiver of any of those                
          rights.” Id. at 179.  We described petitioner’s constitutional              
          claims as frivolous.  Id. at 183.  We then granted the                      
          Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim               
          upon which relief can be granted stating:                                   
                    Rule 331(b)(4) states that a petition for review                  
               of an administrative determination filed pursuant to                   
               section 6330 shall contain clear and concise                           
               assignments of each and every error which the                          
               petitioner alleges to have been committed in the levy                  
               determination and any issue not raised in the                          
               assignments of error shall be deemed to be conceded.                   
               Rule 331(b)(5) states that such a petition shall                       
               contain clear and concise lettered statements of the                   
               facts on which the taxpayer bases each assignment of                   
               error.                                                                 
                    Petitioner failed to raise a valid challenge to                   
               respondent’s proposed levy before the Appeals Office.                  
               Petitioner continued to assert the same frivolous                      
               constitutional claims in his petition for review filed                 
               with the Court.                                                        
                    The validity of petitioner’s underlying tax                       
               liability is not properly at issue in this proceeding.                 
               Moreover, the petition does not assert (nor is there                   
               any basis in the administrative record for the Court to                
               conclude) that respondent abused his discretion with                   
               respect to spousal defenses or collection matters.  See                
               sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).  In the absence of a justiciable                   
               claim for relief in the petition for review filed                      





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011