- 5 -
Following the hearing, respondent on August 14, 2003, issued to
petitioner the aforementioned Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, sustaining
the proposed levy action. An attachment to the notice addressed
the verification of legal and procedural requirements, the issues
raised by the taxpayer, and the balancing of efficient collection
and intrusiveness. The attachment also described what took place
at the hearing, as follows:
On July 25, 2003, Appeals held a conference with the
taxpayer. Appeals explained the Collections Due
Process proceeding, including further litigation
rights, and clarified that this hearing related to the
1999 Form 1040. The taxpayer stated that she filed a
zero tax return. She wanted verification from the
Secretary that she is liable for taxes and that the
persons [sic] who signed the Statutory Notice of
Deficiency was delegated to do so. She questioned the
“Notice and Demand” and wanted to know if it was
computer-generated or a form that you could get from a
shelf. She questioned the delegation order for the
individual who signed Form 4340. She indicated that
she would be willing to sit down and discuss collection
alternatives, but only when it is established that she
owes a liability. Appeals’ policy of not allowing
recording of conferences was also discussed. She was
told that the policy is being reviewed in light of
recent court decisions, but the policy as of July 25th
was the [sic] ban recording. The taxpayer was given an
information sheet on how to make a Freedom of
Information request. Appeals confirmed that she
received Form 4340 and the court cases that were sent.
The taxpayer was warned of the courts issuing sanctions
again. Appeals also confirmed that she didn’t want to
discuss collection alternatives at this point.
The issues raised by the taxpayer had no merit. She
acknowledged that she received the Statutory Notice of
Deficiency and stated why she didn’t pursue her Tax
Court rights then. She didn’t raise any specific
defect with the assessment process. She didn’t want to
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