- 11 -
On that September 27, 2002, date, respondent also issued to
petitioner the aforementioned Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330. The notice
expressly pertained to the 1985 and 1999 taxable years8 and
sustained the proposed levy action. An attachment to the notice
recounted the administrative history of petitioner’s case and
concluded with the following:
The liability at issue for tax years 1985 and 1989
[sic] resulted from self-filed income tax returns that
have gone unpaid to date. Mr. Newstat failed to submit
Form 433-A and without this information I am unable to
evaluate your ability to pay. Since we were unable to
fully pursue collection alternatives because of your
lack of interest, collection alternatives could not be
achieved. Thus, the notice of intent to levy is
necessary and the least intrusive means of collection.
Petitioner’s petition challenging this notice of
determination was filed with the Tax Court on October 31, 2002,
at which time petitioner resided in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey. The
petition focused on petitioner’s contention that he was denied a
“Due Process Hearing” and prayed that the Court issue an order
that he be provided with such a hearing.
Petitioner’s case was initially calendared for trial in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on October 20, 2003, but was
continued to February 9, 2004, on petitioner’s motion, which
motion relied principally on his assertions of poor health.
8 A separate notice of determination was issued regarding
the trust fund recovery penalties.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011