Dawson Craig Lane - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
               3.  Balancing Efficient Collection Actions with Con-                   
               cerns Over the Intrusiveness of the Proposed Collection                
               Since you have not raised a valid challenge to the                     
               appropriateness of the proposed levy, and since you are                
               unwilling to pay the assessment voluntarily, our judg-                 
               ment is that the levy action as proposed by compliance                 
               balances the Service’s need for efficient collection                   
               with your concerns over the intrusiveness of that                      
               action.  Levy action may be taken consistent with the                  
               prior notice requirements of IRC Section 6331 to the                   
               extent that this liability remains unpaid.                             
               On March 1, 2005, petitioner sent a letter (petitioner’s               
          March 1, 2005 letter) to respondent’s counsel in the instant case           
          (respondent’s counsel).  Petitioner’s March 1, 2005 letter stated           
          in pertinent part:                                                          
                    As I see it we have two separate points to deal                   
               with.  The first, is my claim to an exemption from                     
               taxes for moral and religious grounds similar to the                   
               exemption granted the Amish and other groups.  To date                 
               no one from the IRS has provided me with any law prov-                 
               ing that this exemption is not allowed.                                
                    The second issue is in regard to the return I                     
               filed, so as not to be charged with ‘failure to file’                  
               while awaiting a resolution to the first issue and also                
               to show the amount of withheld taxes I was asking to be                
               returned.  This is the area that the IRS has chosen to                 
               focus on.  Here we have only two areas of contention.                  
               The first is my choice to file Head of Household (I                    
               have previously submitted a full explanation for my                    
               reasoning for this), your answer of “you can’t do                      
               that!” is inadequate to resolve this matter and was                    
               typical of the Bulwarian attitude that has brought us                  
               to this point.  Finally, is the point of Social Secu-                  
               rity Numbers (SSN) for my children.  Thank you for the                 
               case opinions you provided on this point.  These fi-                   
               nally give us a place to build a discussion.                           
                    You insisted that these cases proved that I needed                
               SSN’s but these cases actually refer to Taxpayer Iden-                 
               tification Numbers (TIN).  I find it especially inter-                 

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011