- 3 -
“assignment”, deducted $92,923.47 from petitioner’s wages. In an
attempt to determine where the $92,923.47 had been sent, the
Appeals officer wrote to United and to the California Franchise
Tax Board.
On the basis of respondent’s records and those provided by
the State of California, the Appeals officer determined that levy
payments totaling $53,476.27 and $5,965.54 had been applied to
petitioner’s 1992 and 1994 income tax accounts, respectively, and
that in 1998 the State of California had received $12,109.23 in
levy payments relating to petitioner’s State income tax
liabilities. United and petitioner did not provide any
documentation of payments received by respondent other than the
payments reflected on respondent’s records.
On February 7, 2002, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
and/or 6330 relating to 1994. In response, on March 18, 2002,
petitioner, while residing in San Diego, California, filed his
petition with the Court.
OPINION
Petitioner contends that respondent erred in determining
his 1994 tax liability because respondent used “married filing
separately” filing status rather than “married filing jointly”
status. Petitioner, however, received a statutory notice of
deficiency relating to 1994 and, thus, is precluded from raising
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011