Kenneth Hawkins - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
               On June 24, 2002, respondent filed a notice of Federal tax             
          lien on petitioner’s property.  On June 28, 2002, respondent sent           
          petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien and Your Right to a                 
          Hearing.  On July 3, 2002, petitioner filed a Form 12153, Request           
          for a Collection Due Process Hearing.  Petitioner attended the              
          October 24, 2002, hearing but did not present any collection                
          alternatives or make any additional offer and refused to consider           
          any collection alternatives that did not entail removal of the              
          tax lien.  On January 2, 2003, respondent sent petitioner a                 
          notice of determination in which the filing of the Federal tax              
          lien was sustained.                                                         
                                       OPINION6                                       
               Petitioner made two offers in this case to settle his                  
          Federal income tax liability.  Respondent accepted neither offer,           
          then placed a Federal tax lien on petitioner’s property.  We                





               6 Petitioner served untimely discovery requests upon                   
          respondent.  In addition, petitioner attempted to offer                     
          documentary evidence with his posttrial brief.  Petitioner argues           
          that he has been prejudiced by not being able to gather or submit           
          evidence necessary to adequately present his case.  Petitioner              
          did not timely move the Court to compel discovery.  See Rule                
          104(b).  More importantly, petitioner has provided no evidence              
          that respondent failed to comply with petitioner’s requests or              
          misled petitioner in any way.  Finally, we will not treat                   
          documents attached to briefs as evidence.  Rule 143(b); Clifton-            
          Bligh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-44.  We note that, even if           
          the documents offered by petitioner were admissible, they would             
          not change the outcome of this case.                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011