Lucinda A. Yazzie - Page 5

                                        - 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