- 32 -
Under Section 6330(c)(2)(B), neither the existence nor
the amount of the underlying tax liability can be
contested at an Appeals Office hearing unless the
taxpayer did not receive a notice of deficiency for the
tax in question or did not otherwise have an earlier
opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Records
indicated the notices of deficiency were mailed to you
* * *. You received a notice of deficiency, but yet
failed to file a petition for redetermination with the
Court. Therefore, your issue of the underlying tax
liability cannot be considered by the Appeals Office
under the CDP appeal.
Balancing Efficient Tax Collection with Concern
Regarding Intrusiveness
Appeals has verified, or received verification, that
applicable laws and administrative procedures have been
met; has considered the issues raised; and has balanced
the proposed collection with legitimate concern that
such action be no more intrusive than necessary by IRC
Section 6330(c)(3).
Collection alternatives include full payment,
installment agreement, offer in compromise and
currently uncollectible due to financial hardship. At
the hearing and subsequent correspondence, you did not
raise a spousal defense or challenge the Compliance’s
proposed levy action by offering a less instrusive
collection alternative. As of this date, you have not
provided the information for us to determine your
ability to pay and submitted no resolution to your tax
liability.
The Appeals Office believes that the Compliance
Office’s decision to issue the Final Notice was
appropriate and sustains the action in full. The case
is being returned to Compliance for appropriate
collection actions. [Reproduced literally.]
On February 20, 2003, petitioners filed with the Court a
petition for review of the notice of determination with respect
to their taxable years 1996, 1997, and 1999 and attached to the
petition certain exhibits. The petition and most of those
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011