- 4 -
explained the opportunity to present and discuss “non-frivolous”
material. The letter also warned petitioner as follows: “THE
COURTS HAVE DEEMED THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN YOUR
PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
FIRVOLOUS [sic]. THEY WILL NOT HEAR THEM AND NEITHER WILL THEY
BE ADDRESSED AT YOUR COLLECTION DUE PROCESS HEARING.” The
hearing was subsequently rescheduled for April 10, 2003, at
petitioner’s request.
By identical letters dated March 1 and 21, 2003, petitioner
requested that enumerated documents be provided at the upcoming
hearing “before I am persuaded that I am legally obligated to pay
the taxes and penalty at issue.” The letters also advised that
petitioner would be recording the hearing.
Petitioner appeared for the scheduled hearing on April 10,
2003, but the hearing did not proceed when the Appeals officer
refused to permit petitioner to record the meeting. On April 23,
2003, respondent issued to petitioner the aforementioned Notice
of Determination Concerning Collection Action Under Section 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 noted that the
issues raised by petitioner in his correspondence were “frivolous
and without merit” and that petitioner had been provided with
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