- 6 -
HEARING OFFICER KANE: I’m not familiar with that
case. It sounds like the Supreme Court said a
technicality, instructions weren’t given to the jury
properly, it didn’t say that that position was, was
based on law and a solid position. I’m not familiar
with that, but there are dozens of court cases where
these arguments have been presented and I’m not aware
of any of them that have been successful.
MR. JEWETT: Well, the Supreme Court is the
ultimate arbiter and when the Supreme Court tells us
something, I tend to believe it. They’re the only,
they’re the only court whose word is final.
HEARING OFFICER KANE: But it didn’t tell us what
you’re saying it told us, at least if I heard you
correctly.
MR. JEWETT: It said that that belief is an
absolute, it is a defense to a charge of failing to
file a return, and my clients rely on that. You know,
my clients subsequently filed for these years 1040X’s
in which they indicated that, that they actually didn’t
have any income, they had zero income for Federal
income tax purposes. Now, the reasons why are
extensive and they have been dealt with in the
paperwork that I’ve given you, so I’m not going to go
into that.
The Appeals officer provided to petitioners literal
transcripts of their account. On April 17, 2002, a copy of Form
4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified
Matters, was sent to petitioners.
On September 18, 2002, a Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 was sent to
petitioners. The notice indicated the frivolous nature of
petitioners’ arguments and stated: “It has been determined that
the lien filing and proposed levy action are sustained. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011