- 4 -
(notice of intent to levy) with respect to their taxable year
1997. On or about September 13, 2000, in response to the notice
of intent to levy, petitioners filed Form 12153, Request for a
Collection Due Process Hearing (Form 12153), and requested a
hearing with respondent’s Appeals Office (Appeals Office).
Petitioners attached a document to their Form 12153 (petitioners’
attachment to Form 12153) that contained statements, contentions,
arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be frivolous
and/or groundless.4
On December 7, 2000, respondent’s Appeals officer (Appeals
officer) sent a letter to petitioner Richard H. Frank (Mr. Frank)
and a separate letter to petitioner Tammy J. Frank (Ms. Frank).
(We shall refer collectively to those two letters as the Appeals
officer’s December 7, 2000 letters). Those letters stated in
pertinent part:
I have received your request for a Due Process
Hearing. You disagree with Collection’s proposed
intent to levy; you state in your Form 12153,... “I am
challenging the appropriateness of (the) collection
action as specified in 6330(c)(2)(A)(ii) since the IRS
denied all my requests for the initial examinations and
interviews as provided for in Publications 1 & 5. [sic]
I have enclosed a copy of your transcript, which sup-
ports the validity of the assessment.
4Petitioners’ attachment to Form 12153 contained statements,
contentions, arguments, and requests that are similar to the
statements, contentions, arguments, and requests contained in the
attachments to Forms 12153 filed with the Internal Revenue
Service by certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court. See,
e.g., Copeland v. Commissioner, supra; Smith v. Commissioner,
supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011