- 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