-5-
* * * * * * *
If the appeals officer recommends “enforcement of
collection action including levy,” without having
produced these specific documents, then it will be
obvious that the appeals officer is simply attempting
to thwart and circumvent the Code Section 6330 in order
to enable the IRS to continue its practice of making
the illegal seizures uncovered by the Senate Finance
Committee, as referred to by Senator Roth in his book,
and which THE “DUE PROCESS HEARING” was designed to
eliminate.
On February 26, 2002, the Appeals Officer, Robert L. Amick,
sent to petitioner a letter in which he suggested that a hearing
be held in March 2002 either in the IRS office in Sioux City,
Iowa, or in the Omaha Appeals Office in March 2002. In addition,
the Appeals officer advised petitioner that he (the Appeals
officer) requested certified transcripts of petitioner’s accounts
“to provide evidence that the amounts due do in fact exist.”
Petitioner responded to that letter on March 18, 2002. He
requested a hearing in late June or early July. On March 19,
2002, the Appeals officer mailed to petitioner a letter in which
he suggested that petitioner set a meeting date and time by the
end of the month. Enclosed with the letter were Forms 4340,
Transcripts of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified
Matters. Forms 4340 were for petitioner’s taxable years 1994,
1995, and 1996, and were dated March 6, 2002. The Appeals
officer sent to petitioner four other letters on March 21, March
29, May 7, and June 7, 2002, respectively. In his March 29,
2002, letter, the Appeals officer suggested that the hearing be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011