Daniel A. Fink - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
               Individual Income Tax Return, and the related defi-                    
               ciency assessment file.                                                
               The statutory notice of deficiency was correctly sent                  
               for the 1998 income tax assessment on February 18,                     
               2000.  The taxpayer received and responded to it with                  
               frivolous arguments but did not petition the Tax Court.                
               The “notice and demand”, required by IRC 6303, was                     
               properly sent to the taxpayers [sic] last known address                
               on August 7, 2000.  The taxpayer has had an opportunity                
               for judicial review of the income tax assessment and is                
               now precluded, under IRC 6330(c)(2)(B) from raising                    
               challenges “to the existence or amount of the underly-                 
               ing tax liability”.                                                    
                  *       *       *       *       *       *       *                   
               The Settlement Officer assigned to this hearing has had                
               no previous involvement with the taxpayer. * * * The                   
               notice required by IRC 6330 was correctly sent and                     
               resulted in this hearing request.                                      
               Relevant Issues Raised by Taxpayer                                     
               The hearing was conducted with the taxpayer on February                
               5, 2001 [sic].  The taxpayer’s hearing request pre-                    
               sented only frivolous arguments and no relevant argu-                  
               ments were presented at the hearing.  The taxpayer                     
               denied receipt of a Statutory Notice of Deficiency for                 
               his 1998 liability, but he received and responded to it                
               and referenced in his letter dated March 6, 2000.  That                
               letter also presented frivolous arguments and stated,                  
               in part: “Nothing in the Privacy Act Notice or in the                  
               above statutes informs me that I have to ‘comply’ with,                
               or pay attention to, letters and/or alleged ‘determina-                
               tions’ sent to me by various and sundry employees of                   
               the IRS.”  Only arguments of this vein were presented                  
               at the hearing.                                                        
                                                                                     
                  *       *       *       *       *       *       *                   
               The taxpayer was specifically asked if he wished to                    
               propose collection alternatives to levy on his assets                  
               but he presented none.  He was advised of his right to                 
               judicial review of this determination.  He was also                    
               given a copy of Pierson v. Commissioner, 2000 U.S. Tax                 
               Ct. LEXIS 93; 115 T.C. No.39 and was warned that the                   
               courts have been imposing sanctions upon litigation of                 





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011