- 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