- 5 -
Secretary; (2) proof that a notice and demand for payment was
sent to petitioner, a copy of the actual notice and demand that
was sent or a blank copy of the notice, and a Treasury decision
or Treasury regulation which identifies that notice as the
statutory notice and demand. In addition, petitioner raised
challenges to the “existence” of his underlying tax liabilities,
claiming that no “liability” for income taxes exists as a matter
of law.3 Further, petitioner claimed that there is no statute
requiring him “to pay” income taxes.
A hearing was held on September 19, 2001.4 In that
proceeding, petitioner did not raise any collection alternatives
or other relevant issues. Instead, petitioner insisted that he
did not receive a “statutory notice and demand” for payment.
Petitioner also argued:
there is no statutory liability in connection with
these taxes at issue, nor is there a provision that
states that I have to pay the taxes at issue, and in my
letter I said that if the appeals officer believes
otherwise, he need only identify the code section that
establishes such a liability and payment for taxes, and
I would immediately make arrangements to pay as
provided in code section 6330(C)(2) [sic] for whatever
the amount the appeals officer claims is due.
Frank Smigiel (Mr. Smigiel) accompanied petitioner to the Appeals
hearing. The Appeals officer did not permit Mr. Smigiel to
3Petitioner stated that he was not disputing the “amount” of
his underlying tax liabilities.
4Attached to the petition is a document that petitioner
claims to be a transcription of the Appeals hearing.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011