- 6 -
petitioner’s request for a face-to-face and recorded section 6330
hearing, but he suggested that petitioner could and should submit
collection alternatives to him at the scheduled hearing time.
On July 8, 2004, Settlement Officer Feist called petitioner
to conduct a telephonic section 6330 hearing. During the section
6330 hearing, Settlement Officer Feist offered petitioner the
opportunity to raise relevant issues. Petitioner raised
additional frivolous arguments, including one answered on page 36
of “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments.” Petitioner chose
not to offer a collection alternative. Petitioner insisted on a
face-to-face and recorded section 6330 hearing.
On July 12, 2004, respondent issued a Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
and/or 6330 to petitioner regarding his 1998, 1999, and 2000 tax
years (notice of determination). In the notice of determination,
respondent determined that the filing of the notice of levy
should not be withdrawn.
As of July 15, 2004, petitioner’s unpaid liabilities for
1998, 1999, and 2000 were $2,041.57, $22,257.87, and $51,510.14,
respectively.
In the petition, petitioner’s only assignment of error was
that respondent did not allow or provide him a face-to-face
section 6330 hearing pursuant to the regulations under section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011