Duane S. Ashley - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         

                    The taxpayer proposed the Service act on his be-                  
                    half in seeking to recover damages the taxpayer                   
                    says are owed to him by another federal agency.                   
                    There is no established debt at this time, and                    
                    therefore, no power of levy against the debt to                   
                    recover the taxes owed.  The taxpayer was advised                 
                    that he could file an original income tax return                  
                    for the subject year but has yet to do so.  The                   
                    taxpayer was asked to file delinquent tax returns                 
                    but has not done so.  There were no other alterna-                
                    tives offered.                                                    
               Whether the proposed action would be unnecessarily                     
               intrusive as against the need to collect the revenue                   
               efficiently.                                                           
                    The intrusiveness of the proposed levy is commen-                 
                    surate with the need to collect the revenue effi-                 
                    ciently and in such a manner.  The failure to file                
                    delinquent returns precludes the collection alter-                
                    natives most often employed.                                      
                                       OPINION                                        
               Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying             
          tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will               
          review the administrative determination of the Appeals Office for           
          abuse of discretion.5  Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610              
          (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).                 


               5Petitioner did not petition the Court with respect to the             
          notice that respondent issued to him relating to his taxable year           
          1989.  Moreover, although invited to do so by the Appeals Office,           
          petitioner did not prepare and file with the Appeals Office a               
          return for 1989.  At trial, petitioner testified that he did not            
          know what he owed for his taxable year 1989.  Assuming arguendo             
          that petitioner had properly placed at issue the validity of the            
          underlying tax liability at issue, on the record before us, we              
          find that petitioner has failed to establish that petitioner’s              
          unpaid liability for 1989 is not valid.                                     






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011