- 9 -
6330(b)(1). See Burbridge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-88;
Day v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-30. At the section 6330
hearing, the matters petitioner could raise were limited by
section 6330(c)(2) to include appropriate spousal defenses,
challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions, and
offers of collection alternatives.
During the May 11, 2004, telephone hearing petitioner
asserted only tax-protester arguments. Although an offer-in-
compromise was faxed to the Appeals officer, the premise of “Doubt
as to Liability” was based on the assertions that wages are not
income and no section of the Internal Revenue Code requires the
payment of tax, both tax-protester arguments.
Respondent properly verified that the requirements of
applicable law and administrative procedures were met and
balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with the
legitimate concern that the collection action be no more intrusive
than necessary. See sec. 6330(c)(3). Respondent did not abuse
his discretion in sustaining the notice of intent to levy as to
petitioner.
Respondent, in his motion for summary judgment, has asked the
Court to impose a penalty under section 6673(a) against
petitioner. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a
taxpayer to pay the United States a penalty in an amount not to
exceed $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court the taxpayer’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011