- 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