- 7 -
The Court also stated that when Congress enacted sec-
tion 6330 and required that taxpayers be given an
opportunity to seek a pre-levy hearing with Appeals,
Congress was fully aware of the existing nature and
function of Appeals. Nothing in section 6330 or the
legislative history suggests that Congress intended to
alter the nature of an Appeals hearing. The Court
concluded that Congress contemplated the type of infor-
mal administrative Appeals hearing that has been his-
torically conducted by Appeals and prescribed by sec-
tion 601.106(c).
As to your request to record the hearing, you are
welcome to have your tape recorder with you. I will
also record the hearing. With respect to the informa-
tion you requested, enclosed is a copy of I.R.C. 63320
and I.R.C. 6330 and the applicable regulations. Since
the enactment of the 1998 law, there has been many
court cases dealing with due process issues. You may
want to check some of these cases to see what the
courts opinion is. These cases also refer to the law
and its implementation. [Reproduced literally.]
On or about June 13, 2001, in response to the Appeals
officer’s May 9, 2001 letter, petitioner sent a letter (peti-
tioner’s June 13, 2001 letter) to respondent’s Appeals officer.
That letter contained statements, contentions, arguments, and/or
requests that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless.8
On or about June 29, 2001, in response to petitioner’s June
13, 2001 letter, the Appeals officer sent a letter to petitioner.
That letter stated in pertinent part:
8Petitioner’s June 13, 2001 letter contained statements,
contentions, arguments, and/or requests that are similar to the
statements, contentions, arguments, and/or requests that certain
other taxpayers with cases in the Court made to the IRS. See,
e.g., Copeland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-46; Smith v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45.
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