- 10 - married-separate because your spouse had previously filed a separate return and the three-year period for changing a separate return to a joint return had ex- pired. You responded by filing Form 1040X for correc- tions to the 1994 return due to a math error discovered on Schedule A. No subsequent response was received from you and assessment was made as previously proposed in the report [30-day letter pertaining to petitioner’s taxable year 1994] dated April 5, 1999. During the Appeals hearing, you indicated that you currently believe that you have no requirement to file any income tax returns. You raised no other relevant issues relating to the unpaid taxes and made no proposals regarding collection alternatives. Balancing efficient collection and intrusiveness IRC � 6330 requires that the Appeals Officer consider whether any collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. You have not made payments toward these outstanding liabilities [and] dispute having income that could be used to do so. Significant re- sources continue to be used to collect what you owe. You have not provided any arguments but those the Courts have consistently determined to be frivolous, and have not presented any alternatives to the proposed levy. Therefore, Appeals has determined the levy is necessary for the efficient collection of the income tax liability. On December 31, 2001, petitioner filed a petition with the Court for review of respondent’s notice of determination. The petition contains statements, contentions, arguments, and re- quests that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless. On March 28, 2002, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency with respect to his taxable years 1996 and 1997. As it pertains to petitioner’s taxable year 1996, that noticePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011