Stan D. Kaye - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
               On October 12, 2000, respondent received petitioner’s Form             
          12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing.  On February           
          13, 2002, a face-to-face hearing was held between an Appeals                
          officer and petitioner.  During the hearing, petitioner was                 
          provided with a Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments,            
          and Other Specified Matters for his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax                
          years.  The Appeals officer also informed petitioner that the               
          arguments he made at the hearing were considered to be frivolous.           
          The hearing was recorded and transcribed.                                   
               On March 8, 2002, respondent issued two Notice(s) of                   
          Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320            
          and/or 6330 advising that respondent determined to proceed with             
          collection.  Attached to the notices were the Appeals officer’s             
          report, denominated as a “Summary of Issue and Recommendation”,             
          which included advice to petitioner that the Tax Court is                   
          authorized “to impose monetary sanctions up to $25,000 for                  
          instituting or maintaining an action before it primarily of [sic]           
          delay or for a [sic] taking a position that is frivolous or                 
          groundless.”                                                                
          Discussion                                                                  
               Respondent seeks summary judgment with respect to whether he           
          may proceed to collect certain outstanding tax liabilities                  


               2(...continued)                                                        
          his petition to this Court, petitioner did not challenge                    
          respondent’s actions with respect to the 1998 liability.                    





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011