Michael E. Nestor - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
          requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure              
          have been met”, for example, a copy of the statutory notice and             
          demand for payment; (2) a copy of Form 23C, Summary Record of               
          Assessment, and the “pertinent parts of the assessment which set            
          forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of the assessment, the             
          character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, and the            
          amount assessed”; (3) delegation of authority from the Secretary            
          to the person (other than the Secretary) who signed the                     
          verification required under section 6330(c)(1); and (4) proof               
          that notices of deficiency were sent to petitioner.                         
          C.   The Section 6330 Hearing and Respondent’s Notice of                    
               Determination                                                          
               On December 28, 1999, respondent’s Appeals Office conducted            
          a hearing in petitioner’s case for tax years 1990-97.  Petitioner           
          attended the hearing.  He was not given an opportunity to                   
          challenge his underlying tax liability for 1990-97 at the                   
          hearing.  At the hearing, he asked the Appeals officer to provide           
          verification that the requirements of any applicable law or                 
          administrative procedures had been met, to give him copies of a             
          notice and demand for payment, and to show him “anything that               
          indicated [he] owed income tax” or that he was required to pay              
          Federal income tax.  The Appeals officer did not comply with                
          petitioner’s requests and told petitioner that the hearing was              
          limited to alternatives to collection.  At the hearing,                     
          petitioner did not challenge the appropriateness of the intended            





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