Daniel and Sally A. Holguin - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
                    The taxpayer responded by submitting a Form 12153,                
               Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, to the                   
               Collection officer;                                                    
                    The taxpayer’s appeal was timely, being mailed on                 
               11/2/01-The taxpayer is entitled to judicial review;                   
                    *       *       *       *       *       *       *                 
               Both certified transcripts, and non-literal transcripts                
               were requested and reviewed by this A.O.  Copies of the                
               certified transcripts were provided to the taxpayer.  A                
               “face to face” CDP Hearing was offered to TP. * * * The                
               meeting was held on 4/18/2002.  TP represented himself.                
               Issues Raised by the Taxpayer                                          
               In TP’s appeal request, TP’s arguments were plentiful                  
               but without substance.  They were of the type described                
               by the Courts as “frivolous.” * * * TP disputes the                    
               receipt of an official notice of deficiency and other                  
               procedural errors based on TP’s personal views and                     
               conclusions of law.  In my opinion, based on Court                     
               decisions, those arguments have no merit.  TP was                      
               provided copies of court cases attesting to the fact                   
               that the courts are tired of such arguments and could                  
               sanction TP if they were brought forth in a judicial                   
               hearing.                                                               
               At the time of the conference, TP did not make a claim                 
               he was an “innocent spouse.” * * * Nor did TP provide                  
               any non-frivolous argument as to the steps taken by the                
               Collection division to obtain payment.  TP did attempt                 
               to offer questions regarding procedures, but such                      
               questions were generally frivolous and had no bearing                  
               on the outcome of the case.  TP did not suggest that he                
               might become current in or correct his prior filings.                  
               Nor did TP suggest any collection alternatives.                        
                                    MY EVALUATION                                     
               Review of the information stated above and now present                 
               in the administrative file shows the requirements of                   
               all applicable laws and administrative procedures have                 
               been met.  Assessments were properly made.  TP was                     
               billed for and did not pay amounts due.  The Compliance                
               Division proceeded with enforced collection action and                 
               it appears they should be allowed to continue with the                 
               action.                                                                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011