- 6 -
and therefore respondent did not follow section 6320(a)(2)
because he sent the hearing notices on August 5, 1999.
Respondent claims that the FTL notices were filed on August 2,
1999, the date of mailing, and therefore the hearing notices were
sent to petitioners within 5 days of the filing of the FTL
notices as required by section 6320(a)(2).
Irrespective of whether the date of filing of the FTL
notices was August 2, as respondent contends, or August 27, as
petitioners contend, respondent complied with section 6320(a)(2).
Section 6320(a)(2) requires that the hearing notice be given “not
more than 5 business days after the date of the filing of the
notice of lien.” August 5, 1999, the date respondent issued the
hearing notices to petitioners, is not more than 5 business days
after August 2 or 27, 1999.
Petitioners have failed to raise a spousal defense, make a
valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended
collection action, or offer alternative means of collection.
These issues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331(b)(4).
Accordingly, we conclude that respondent’s determination to
proceed with collection with respect to petitioners’ 1987, 1988,
1989, and 1991 tax years was not an abuse of discretion.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: May 25, 2011