- 3 -
administration as soon as the taxpayer’s request for a
collection due process hearing is placed in the hands
of a representative of the Internal Revenue Service who
will consider the taxpayer’s submission.
On July 11, 2002, petitioner’s authorized representative,
William Taggart, spoke on the telephone with Appeals Officer
Gerry Melick. On August 13, 2002, Mr. Taggart and Appeals
Officer Melick spoke on the telephone again. The record is
silent as to the substance of these two telephone conversations.
Neither Mr. Taggart nor petitioner had a face-to-face meeting
with Appeals Officer Melick.
On August 23, 2002, the Appeals Office issued a “Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action Under Section 6330"
(notice of determination) in which it sustained the proposed levy
action. In pertinent part, the notice of determination provided
the following explanation:
In Appeals, you were granted a due process hearing by
an appeals officer who had no prior involvement with
respect to the tax for the tax periods covered by the
hearing.
Relevant issues presented by the taxpayer: In your
protest you state that an offer in compromise has been
prepared and will be presented. However, an offer in
compromise or other alternative to collection action is
precluded by your chronic non-compliance.
Balancing efficient collection and intrusiveness:
* * * Because of your non-compliance and your failure
to make any effort to pay or otherwise resolve the
liabilities it is seen that levy action may well be the
least intrusive means of collection to be in any way
effective or efficient.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011