- 24 -
makes arguments similar to those you have made about
Delegation Orders, etc. As you can see, the Court
decides the case in favor of the Government.
On December 10, 2002, in response to the settlement
officer’s November 26, 2002 letter to petitioners, petitioners
sent a letter to the settlement officer (petitioners’ December
10, 2002 letter). Petitioners’ December 10, 2002 letter stated
in pertinent part:
In response to your letter of November 26, 2002, and
based upon your invitation to do so, we raise these
valid issues in regard to your statements and exhibits:
1. We did not raise any arguments based on
moral, religious, political, constitutional,
conscientious or similar grounds, so we will
not help you to pretend that we did.
2. On the issue of impartiality, your letter of
November 26th proves that you are NOT
impartial to the proposed collection action:
a.) We did not raise any arguments
whatsoever. We asked for the
documents that the laws describe,
which must be present before a
determination can be made by you to
proceed with collection by
distraint.
We cite as a valid issue: The Statute, IR
Code 6330(c)(3) entitled “Basis for the
determination. The determination by an appeals
officer under this subsection shall take into
consideration-A.) the verification presented under
paragraph (1),; B.) the issues raised under
paragraph (2), which is “any relevant issue
relating to the unpaid tax or proposed levy”...
b.) You state * * * “Based upon a
review of your case file, I find no
error in the part of the Service in
sending you the proper notices of
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011