- 7 -
On September 11, 2003, the Appeals officer attempted to hold
the scheduled conference with Mr. Carrillo, but Mr. Carrillo
refused to proceed when he was not permitted to record the
hearing. Thereafter, on January 21, 2004, respondent issued a
separate but identical Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 to each
petitioner sustaining the proposed lien and levy actions. An
attachment to the notice addressed the various issues raised by
petitioners, indicated that petitioners were not entitled to
raise their underlying liabilities on account of failure to seek
prior available recourse in the District Court (for 1997 and
1998) or Tax Court (for 1999 and 2000), and pointed out that
petitioners had raised no issue as to collection alternatives.
Petitioners’ petition disputing the notices of determination
was filed on February 10, 2004, and reflected an address in Las
Vegas, Nevada. In general, petitioners ask that the Court
declare the notices of determination “null and void”.
Petitioners’ complaints with respect to the administrative
proceedings include the following: No legitimate hearing under
section 6330 ever took place; petitioners were not permitted to
record a hearing; petitioners were denied the opportunity to
raise issues they deemed “relevant” (e.g., the “existence” of the
underlying tax liability); and requested documentation had not
been produced (e.g., record of the assessments, statutory notice
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