- 5 -
On January 29, 2001, petitioner submitted to respondent Form
12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. In the
request, petitioner stated that he would explain all his reasons
for opposing the proposed levy at the hearing.
The Appeals Office Hearing
In communications and correspondence between petitioner and
respondent’s Appeals Office from June 5, 2001, through December
4, 2001, petitioner raised several tax protestor arguments
regarding his 1997 tax liability.
By letter dated December 5, 2001, Appeals Officer Phyllis
Cayenne (the Appeals officer) scheduled an administrative hearing
with petitioner at respondent’s Manhattan Appeals Office in New
York City. In her letter to petitioner, the Appeals officer
continued and stated, in part:
Our jurisdiction in * * * [this case] is limited to
hearing relevant issues relating to unpaid tax,
including appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to
the appropriateness of collection actions, offer[s] of
collection alternatives and challenges to the
underlying tax liability, if you did not receive a
statutory notice of deficiency or did not otherwise
have an opportunity to dispute the liability. Your
letter dated 6/5/2001 to * * * [respondent’s Appeals
Office] only provided constitutional arguments and did
not include relevant issues that we may consider.
* * * * * * *
The arguments raised in your letter of 6/5/2001 are
frivolous and your positions have no basis in law.
Arguments such as yours have been considered and
rejected repeatedly as being without merit by Federal
courts, including the Supreme Court of the United
States. Pursuing them in a Federal court could lead to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011