Daniel J. and Ruth E. Tapio - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          correct amount of tax, precluding the assessment of additional              
          amounts; (2) whether respondent had authority to determine or               
          collect additional tax; and (3) whether section 6331 applied in             
          this case.                                                                  
               A face-to-face hearing was held between petitioners and                
          respondent’s Appeals officer.  The Appeals officer provided                 
          petitioners with a transcript of their 1997 tax account.                    
          Petitioners recorded and transcribed the hearing.  In summary,              
          petitioners made the following assertions at the hearing: (1) The           
          Appeals officer had not obtained verification in accord with                
          section 6330 and that the administrative requirements were not              
          met with respect to the intent to levy; (2) that Government                 
          employees committed fraud by altering and correcting a public               
          document; (3) that wages were not taxable because they do not               
          represent a profit; and (4) that the provisions of the Internal             
          Revenue Code, and in particular section 6331, did not apply to              
          petitioners because they applied only to U.S. Government                    
          employees.  The Appeals officer invited petitioners to discuss              
          less intrusive collection alternatives, but petitioners declined            
          other alternatives on the ground that they did not owe tax.                 
               On July 25, 2001, after the hearing, the Appeals Office                
          mailed petitioners a notice of determination concluding that                
          respondent could proceed with collection based on the Appeals               
          officer’s findings and conclusions that (1) petitioners had been            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011