- 8 - procedures had been followed in the assessment and collection process. Petitioners were informed that Form 4340 was sufficient to satisfy the verification requirement of section 6330(c)(1). Petitioners also alleged that they never received “the statutory notice and demand for payment” and repeatedly challenged the Appeals officer to: show me the law that states that I have [to pay] income tax–-that I owe this income tax. You didn’t show that. Here’s the Codebook, show it to me now [placing Internal Revenue Code in front of Appeals officer], and I’ll get my checkbook–-I’ll pay it right now on the spot if you show this right to me now. The Appeals officer advised petitioners that they were advancing frivolous arguments. He also provided them with a copy of this Court’s opinion in Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576 (2000), and he referred them to this Court’s opinion in Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-87. Ultimately, the Appeals officer terminated the hearing after petitioners declined to discuss collection alternatives. E. Respondent’s Notice of Determination On September 20, 2001, respondent’s Appeals Office issued to petitioners a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 with regard to their tax liability for 1997. In the notice, the Appeals Office concluded that respondent’s determination to proceed with collection by way of levy should be sustained.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011