Daniel E. Duncan - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
               2002 * * *.  This hearing was not audio or stenographi-                
               cally recorded.  The taxpayer was advised prior to the                 
               hearing by letter that no audio recording or steno-                    
               graphic recording would be allowed per a directive                     
               issued by the Acting Chief of Appeals dated 05/02/02.                  
                  *       *       *       *       *       *       *                   
               Issues Raised by the Taxpayer                                          
                  *       *       *       *       *       *       *                   
               At the hearing Appeals attempted to review with the                    
               taxpayer the certified transcripts, Forms 4340, the                    
               return packages, the statutory notices of deficiency,                  
               and the basis of assessments based on the wages re-                    
               ported.  The taxpayer only raised non-filer arguments                  
               and stated that he had only attached the Forms W-2 to                  
               claim a refund of the withholding.  The taxpayer stated                
               that he did not believe that wages are income.  The                    
               taxpayer was advised that he had received the statutory                
               notices of deficiency for the 1997 and 1998 years for                  
               the assessment of the individual income tax liabilities                
               and was precluded from raising this issue at the col-                  
               lection due process hearing. * * *                                     
               When the taxpayer was asked if he wished to discuss                    
               collection alternatives, he stated that he was inter-                  
               ested in knowing if Appeals could point out the site                   
               [sic] where the Internal Revenue Code stated that he                   
               was liable for taxes.  Due to the fact that the tax-                   
               payer only continued to raise non-filer arguments and                  
               in addition was not in filing compliance, collection                   
               alternatives were not discussed.  The taxpayer does not                
               believe that wages are income and does not believe that                
               the tax laws apply to him.  The hearing was concluded.                 
               Appeals did provide to the taxpayer recent court case                  
               decisions on T. Pierson and R. Davis wherein the same                  
               type of arguments were raised and the taxpayer was                     
               advised that in some instances sanctions were being                    
               imposed for raising these arguments.                                   
               The taxpayer raised no other non-frivolous issues.                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011