- 5 -
On July 2, 2004, Settlement Officer Feist called petitioner
because he had received a letter dated June 28, 2004, from
petitioner requesting feedback on the fax. As of July 2, 2004,
Settlement Officer Feist had not received from petitioner any
listing of relevant issues that petitioner wished to discuss at
the section 6330 hearing. During the call on that date
petitioner stated that he was out of town without access to his
files and he would call Settlement Officer Feist on July 6, 2004,
with the relevant issues he wished to discuss. Settlement
Officer Feist offered petitioner the opportunity for a
correspondence or telephonic section 6330 hearing on July 8,
2004, as petitioner had not provided him with any relevant issues
to discuss at the section 6330 hearing.
On July 7, 2004, Settlement Officer Feist received two phone
messages and a fax from petitioner. Petitioner raised issues
regarding respondent’s notices’ not having the force and effect
of law and respondent’s authority to send notices to him. That
same day, Settlement Officer Feist telephoned petitioner about
his aforementioned arguments and informed petitioner that all
laws and administrative procedures had been complied with.
Petitioner’s response was a frivolous argument, and Settlement
Officer Feist noted to petitioner that his argument was addressed
on page 42 of “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments” that he
had provided to petitioner. Settlement Officer Feist denied
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011