- 10 -
In the proposed second amended petition lodged with the
Court, petitioner alleges: (1) Respondent failed to
unconditionally offer petitioner a face-to-face CDP hearing near
petitioner’s residence; (2) respondent denied petitioner the
right to audio record “any in-person interview”; (3) respondent
failed to verify that all applicable law or administrative
procedure was met; (4) respondent’s denial to conduct the face-
to-face CDP hearing “prevented petitioner from offering certain
valid collection alternatives, such as the posting of a bond and
the substitution of other assets”; (5) respondent denied
petitioner the right to challenge the underlying tax liability,
specifically, the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(3) and
accrued interest under section 6601;8 (6) respondent failed to
balance the need for efficient collection of taxes with the
legitimate concern that any collection action be no more
intrusive than necessary; and (7) the Appeals officer was biased.
By Order dated October 12, 2005, the Court calendared
respondent’s motion for summary judgment, petitioner’s motion to
remove small tax case designation, and petitioner’s motion for
leave to file second amended petition for hearing at the Court’s
trial session in Los Angeles, California, on October 31, 2005.
8 See supra note 5.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011