- 14 -
statutory liability in connection with
the income taxes at issue.
a) In addition, we are challenging the
“existence” of the underlying tax
liability as the law (Sec.
6330(c)(2)(B)) and regulation (301.6330-
1T-(e)) specifically permit us to do.
If the appeals officer believes
otherwise, he need only identify for us
the Code Section that establishes such a
liability * * *. The * * * IR Code * *
* that we will bring to the CDP hearing
lists some 40 taxes under the caption
“Liability for tax”; however, I cannot
find an entry for “income taxes.” * * *
* * * * * * *
b) The issue of the “existence” of the
“underlying tax liability” is certainly
relevant as to whether or not we owe the
income taxes at issue. Since the legal
“existence” of an income tax liability
is such an easy thing to establish * * *
why wouldn’t the appeals officer simply
identify such a Code section if it
exists? The only possible reason for
him not doing so, is if that no such
Code section does exist.
c) One (nonsensical) excuse the appeals
officer might offer * * * is to claim
that he is not going to get into this
issue because we allegedly got a notice
of deficiency and so we had an
“opportunity to dispute such a tax
liability” as mentioned in Section
6330(c)(2)(B). However, we never had
such an opportunity. Attached, as
Exhibit D, is a copy of the “deficiency
notice” [1999] we received. It was
prepared and sent out by Gwen Krauss who
is identified as Director of the
Customer Service Center, Chamblee
Georgia. However, Code Section 6212
provides that it is “the Secretary” who
“determines that there is a deficiency”
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011