Deirdre G. McNamara - Page 4

                                        - 3 -                                         
          Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing.  As a basis for her           
          disagreement with respondent’s proposed collection action                   
          petitioner asserts, among other things, that “govt. agencies                
          colluded in egregious civil & human rights abuses against me & my           
          family”.  By letter dated November 27, 2001, the Appeals officer            
          invited petitioner to submit additional relevant information                
          relating to the issues that could be considered.  In this                   
          connection, a Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement, was             
          provided to petitioner so that she could present collection                 
          alternatives to respondent.  Petitioner responded by letter dated           
          December 8, 2001.  The letter does not contain any information or           
          assertions that could reasonably be considered as an appropriate            
          challenge to respondent’s collection action.  As a result, on               
          February 11, 2002, respondent issued a notice of determination,             
          wherein he concluded that respondent could proceed with the                 
          proposed collection action.                                                 
          Discussion                                                                  
               This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s               
          administrative determination under section 6330.  Sec. 6330(d).             
          Petitioner received a notice of deficiency, and she timely filed            
          a petition with this Court.  A decision was entered with respect            
          to the taxable year 1995 based on the agreement of the parties.             
          Since the validity of the underlying tax liability is not at                
          issue, we review the determination for abuse of discretion.  Sego           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011