- 6 -
grounds to assess. Mr. Tapio also contended that respondent’s
employees had committed fraud by determining and assessing a tax
liability based on Forms W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement) reflecting
that he had wages. The fraud envisioned by Mr. Tapio was that
the determination and assessment constituted an alteration of
petitioners’ filed return reporting zero income and zero tax.
Our review of the lengthy transcript of the Collection Due
Process Hearing shows that the Appeals officer was patient,
thorough, and that he had complied with the section 6330
requirements that are prerequisite for the Commissioner to pursue
collection.
At this Court’s hearing of the parties’ arguments for and
against summary judgment, petitioners made the following
arguments that were not made at the Collection Due Process
Hearing: (1) That respondent’s notice of deficiency was
procedurally defective because respondent did not provide
petitioners with a delegation of authority showing that the
person who signed the notice had been delegated authority to do
so by the Secretary; and (2) that the notice and demand was not
in accord with T.D. 1995 issued in 1914 which required that a
Form 17, be used for that purpose. Petitioners also referenced
three cases2 which they believed supported their argument that a
2 Filippini v. United States, 318 F.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1963);
United States v. Lehigh, 201 F. Supp. 224 (W.D. Ark. 1961);
United States v. Pavenick, 197 F. Supp. 257 (D.N.J. 1961).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011