- 8 -
did not want to have a hearing if he could not record it, so he
left with his recording equipment.
On June 11, 2002, respondent issued to petitioner a Notice
of Determination Concerning Collection Actions(s) Under Section
6320 and/or 6330. The notice of determination stated that
respondent determined that, after balancing the need for
efficient collection against petitioner’s arguments, it was
appropriate to proceed with the levy action.
On July 12, 2002, petitioner filed with the Court a timely
Petition for Lien or Levy Action. The only issue raised in the
petition pertains to the Appeals officer’s decision to preclude
petitioner from recording the hearing. The petition states in
pertinent part:
Petitioner states that the determination action by the
Appeals Office in this instant case was not only
inappropriate, biased and prejudiced, but also an
illegal action designed to deny the petitioner his due
process rights to make a full and complete official
record of a hearing with the government a potential
adversarial relationship.
On August 12, 2002, petitioner filed an Amended Petition
elaborating on his argument that he should have been permitted to
audio record the hearing.
After filing an answer to the amended petition, respondent
filed the motion for summary judgment that is pending before the
Court. Respondent maintains that there is no dispute as to
material facts and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011