- 5 -
The assessment was made, and notice and demand was
issued by regular mail to the taxpayers’ last known
address, as required under IRC 6303. The notices
required under IRC 6331(d) and IRC 6330 were combined
in Letter 1058, dated 08/23/2001, which was mailed
certified to the taxpayers’ last known address. The
taxpayers responded with Form 12153, Request for a
Collection Due Process Hearing, which was timely re-
ceived and was postmarked 09/20/2001. The taxpayers
are entitled to judicial review. This is a levy issue
only.
A MFTRAX transcript was reviewed, and a copy was pro-
vided to the taxpayers at the face-to-face Collection
Due Process hearing held on 03/12/2002. In attendance
were the taxpayer, a taxpayer witness, Settlement
Officer Donna Fisher, and Settlement Officer Renee
Swall. * * * The hearing was audio-recorded by the
taxpayer and Settlement Officer Donna Fisher.
Settlement Officer Donna Fisher has had no prior in-
volvement with respect to this tax liability.
Issues Raised by the Taxpayer
The taxpayers disagree with the assessment. They filed
a zero income, zero tax due return, attaching several
pages of non-filer arguments and a Form W-2 showing
taxable wages of $24,724.88. They also had additional
taxable income, bringing their total income to $52,556
for tax year 1998. Their return was examined, and they
were issued a statutory notice of deficiency, dated
07/14/2000, for additional tax of $9,707 plus penalty
and interest. They responded to the notice of defi-
ciency with a letter dated 07/20/2000. This letter
raised no relevant arguments, and they did not petition
the tax court. Since they had a previous opportunity
to dispute the assessment, they were precluded under
the Collection Due Process procedures from raising as
an issue the amount or existence of the underlying
assessment.
The taxpayers raised no non-filer arguments.
Collection alternatives were raised with the taxpayers.
They indicated they would full [sic] pay the tax if it
could be proven to them that they are liable for it.
However, the non-filer arguments attached to their 1998
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011