- 5 -
determination, respondent determined, in pertinent part, as
follows:
1. The presiding appeals officer had had no prior
involvement with respect to the unpaid liabilities.
2. Respondent sent the notices required by sections 6330
and 6331(d).
3. Petitioners did not raise any spousal defenses or
request a collection alternative. The only argument raised by
petitioners at the hearing was that the Internal Revenue Code is
unconstitutional.
4. The proposed levy balances respondent’s need for
efficient tax collection with the taxpayers’ legitimate concern
that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary.
On September 15, 2003,2 this Court filed petitioners’
petition in which petitioners contested the determination made by
respondent in the notice of determination dated August 11, 2003.
In their petition, petitioners gave the following reasons for
seeking relief:
Section 7608(a) of the Internal Revenue Code only
provides Revenue Officers with the authority to enforce
subtitle E taxes, (liquor, tobacco and fire arms,)
while the “Enforcement of laws relating to internal
revenue other than subtitle E” taxes are delegated (in
7608(b)) to “Any criminal investagator [sic] of the
Intelligence Division or of the Internal Security
Division. Since the person executing the Notice of
2The envelope in which the petition was mailed was
postmarked Sept. 8, 2003.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011