Paul Everman - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          Process hearing expressly referenced the final notice of intent             
          to levy.                                                                    
               E.  The Appeals Office Hearing                                         
               On January 16, 2002, petitioner attended an administrative             
          hearing conducted by an Appeals officer at the IRS Appeals Office           
          in Toledo, Ohio.                                                            
               At the start of the hearing, the Appeals officer stated that           
          because petitioner’s request for an administrative hearing was              
          received more than 30 days after the issuance of the final notice           
          of intent to levy (and, a fortiori, more than 30 days after the             
          issuance of the notice required by section 6320), the hearing               
          would be conducted as an “equivalent” hearing.                              
               During the hearing, petitioner requested that the Appeals              
          officer verify that the persons who issued the final notice of              
          intent to levy and the notice required by section 6320 and who              
          filed the Notice of Federal Tax Lien were all authorized to do              
          so.  Petitioner also questioned the validity of the final notice            
          of intent to levy because it was not signed.                                
               F.  Respondent’s Decision Letter                                       
               On July 12, 2002, the Appeals Office issued to petitioner a            
          Decision Letter Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6320            
          and/or 6330 (the decision letter) with regard to petitioner’s               
          unpaid tax liabilities for 1996 and 1997.  In the decision                  
          letter, the Appeals Office concluded: “The collection actions,              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011