- 6 -
During Appeals consideration of your case, you did
not raise any non-frivolous collection alternatives or
any non-frivolous issues.
Appeals has obtained verification from the
Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law
or administrative procedure have been met, considered
any relevant issues relating to the unpaid tax raised
at the hearing, and taken into consideration whether
the proposed collection action balances the need for
the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate
concern of the person that any collection action be no
more intrusive than necessary. Therefore, it is the
determination in this case the issuance of the Notice
of Intent to Levy is sustained.
On July 8, 2004, petitioner filed a petition with the Court
for judicial review of respondent’s notice of determination. In
his petition, petitioner contends that he did not receive a
hearing as required by section 6330 because: (1) He was not
allowed to have a face-to-face conference; (2) the hearing officer
had no authority to limit what was to be discussed during a
telephone conference; and (3) he was not allowed to challenge the
existence of the underlying tax liability.
On March 9, 2005, respondent filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking a decision that collection can proceed and to
impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673. By order dated March
10, 2005, petitioner was given until April 11, 2005, to file a
response to the motion for summary judgment. Petitioner filed a
response on April 11, 2005, which stated in part:
Petitioner was denied a face-to-face hearing unless
petitioner discussed only issues allowed by the
settlement officer. By letter dated April 8, 2004,
petitioner was advised that Appeals does not hold face-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011