Jerry D. Criner - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          respect to petitioner’s 1990 through 1993 income tax liabilities.           
               3.   Petitioner did not raise any spousal defenses during              
          the hearing, and, consequently, none were considered.                       
               4.   Petitioner had signed a Form 870 agreeing to the                  
          assessment of the 1990 through 1993 income tax deficiencies and             
          waiving his right to judicial review, thereby precluding any                
          challenge to the amount of the underlying liabilities.7                     
               5.   All legal and administrative requirements for the                 
          filing of a nominee NFTL, including the requirement to request              
          and obtain Counsel’s approval, had been satisfied.  Counsel’s               
          approval of the NFTL was based on documentation sufficient to               
          show that petitioner was the sole owner of the Claremore                    
          property.  Moreover, petitioner had admitted during the hearing             
          that he owned an interest in the Claremore property.                        
               6.   No collection alternatives were discussed because an              
          agreement could not be reached regarding the extent of                      
          petitioner’s ownership interest in the Claremore property.                  
               7.   The filing of the nominee NFTL balanced the need for              
          efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the            
          taxpayer that the collection action be no more intrusive than               
          necessary and was appropriate under the circumstances.                      


               7Petitioner did not contest this part of the Appeals                   
          Office’s determination in his petition, at trial, or in his                 
          posttrial brief.  Consequently, we do not address it in this                
          opinion.                                                                    





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011