- 4 - Although the notices of deficiency explained petitioner’s right to petition the Tax Court to contest the deficiency determinations, petitioner chose not to do so. Rather, in various letters to respondent in 1997 through 1999, petitioner acknowledged receipt of the notices of deficiency and disputed respondent’s authority to issue them. C. Respondent’s Final Notice and Petitioner’s Response After sending petitioner a number of notices of intent to levy, on October 17, 2000, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing in respect of the assessments of petitioner’s deficiencies and additions to tax, plus interest, for tax years 1995, 1996, and 1997. By letter dated November 3, 2000, petitioner requested an administrative hearing. D. The Appeals Office Hearing On November 1, 2001, petitioner attended an administrative hearing in Akron, Ohio, before respondent’s Appeals officer. According to a purported transcript of the hearing attached to petitioner’s petition, petitioner declined to discuss meaningful collection alternatives at the hearing.2 Rather, petitioner 2 Petitioner’s purported transcript of the Appeals Office hearing reveals that the only “collection alternative” he was willing to discuss was patently spurious: Now, I’m proposing an alternative for payment and that is let the record show that I’m providing the Internal (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011