Ferrel Benjamin Gibbs - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          (request), dated July 2, 2005.  On that form, petitioner repeated           
          his request for written confirmation that the information sought            
          by the IRS “never be used against * * * [him] as a link in the              
          chain of evidence in a criminal investigation or as evidence                
          against * * * [him] in a criminal prosecution”.                             
               On July 14, 2005, the IRS sent a letter to petitioner,                 
          informing him that his request for a CDP hearing had been                   
          forwarded to Appeals for consideration.  In a letter dated                  
          September 12, 2005, petitioner was given the name of Settlement             
          Officer Genene Hopkins (Hopkins), as the person to contact with             
          any questions.  On September 29, 2005, Hopkins sent to petitioner           
          a letter that informed him that the statements made in his                  
          request are items that:  “1. Courts have determined are frivolous           
          or groundless, or 2. Appeals does not consider.  These are moral,           
          religious, political, constitutional, conscientious, or similar             
          grounds.”  Also in this letter, Hopkins described what she must             
          consider during the hearing, stating:                                       
               Whether the IRS met all the requirements of any                        
               applicable law or administrative procedure                             
               Any relevant issues you wish to discuss.  These can                    
               include:                                                               
                    1.   Collection alternatives to levy * * *.                       
                    2.   Challenges to the appropriateness of                         
                         collection action.  * * *                                    
                    3.   Spousal defenses, when applicable.                           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011