- 4 -
Section 6320 and/or 6330 with regard to petitioner’s tax
liability for 1998. The notice of determination stated in
pertinent part: “Enforced collection, in the form of the proposed
levy action, is appropriate in this situation.”
The notice of determination was executed on behalf of ATM
LaCoke by John T. Benton, Appeals Team Manager of the Appeals
Office in Austin, Texas (ATM Benton). At that time, the Austin
and San Antonio Appeals Offices shared a Records Unit, which was
located in Austin. The Records Unit was responsible for mailing
all notices of determination for the two offices. The agreed
upon practice was for ATM Benton to sign for ATM LaCoke whenever
approval for the issuance of a notice of determination was given
by an acting ATM in the San Antonio Appeals Office. The Austin
and San Antonio Appeals Offices adopted this practice in order to
eliminate any question regarding the validity of a notice of
determination that was mailed after the acting ATM’s authority
had expired.
E. The Petition
On September 9, 2002, petitioner filed with the Court a
petition challenging respondent’s notice of determination dated
April 11, 2002.3 Although Leslie J. Elmore joined in filing the
3 The petition in this case was timely filed under sec.
6330(d)(1) inasmuch as petitioner initially filed a timely
complaint challenging the notice of determination in Federal
District Court, and petitioner subsequently filed his petition
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011