- 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