William G. Koenig - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          6673(a) for making frivolous and groundless arguments in a                  
          collection review proceeding.                                               
               E.  Respondent’s Notice of Determination                               
               On May 7, 2002, respondent’s Appeals Office mailed to                  
          petitioner, at his Las Vegas address, a Notice of Determination             
          Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330              
          with regard to his tax liability for 1998.  In the notice, the              
          Appeals Office concluded that respondent’s determination to                 
          proceed with collection should be sustained.                                
               F.  Petitioner’s Petition                                              
               On June 10, 2002, petitioner filed with the Court a Petition           
          for Lien or Levy Action seeking review of respondent’s notice of            
          determination.  In the petition, petitioner identified his Las              
          Vegas address as his current address, and he attached as exhibits           
          a number of documents, including the notice of determination (see           
          supra “E”).                                                                 
               The petition includes allegations that: (1) The Appeals                
          officer failed to obtain verification from the Secretary that the           
          requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure              
          were met as required under section 6330(c)(1); (2) the Appeals              
          officer failed to identify the statutes making petitioner liable            
          for Federal income tax; (3) petitioner never received a “valid”             
          notice of deficiency; (4) petitioner never received a “statutory”           
          notice and demand for payment; and (5) petitioner was denied the            






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