- 23 -
Cir. 2005); Leineweber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-17;
Armstrong v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-224; Gougler v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-185; Mann v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-48. Thus, a face-to-face meeting is not invariably
required.
With respect to the instant matter, the record reflects that
the Appeals officer provided petitioner with an opportunity for a
face-to-face hearing if petitioner would advise the Appeals
officer of the legitimate issues petitioner intended to raise at
the hearing. Petitioner responded by letter reiterating
frivolous and groundless tax protester arguments. Further,
petitioner failed to indicate any legitimate issues to be
addressed in the hearing, such as spousal defenses, the
appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended collection action,
possible alternative means of collection, or interest
abatement.13 In light of petitioner’s frivolous arguments, a
13 We note that petitioner alleged in his proposed second
amended petition that because respondent denied petitioner a
hearing, petitioner was not able to raise collection
alternatives. Petitioner, however, failed to raise any
collection alternative with the Appeals officer and refused to
submit a Form 433-A. In light of the record before us and given
petitioner’s tax protester agenda, we are not persuaded that
petitioner intended or intends to raise legitimate collection
alternatives. See Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-
153; Moorhous v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-183; Londono v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-99 and to the effect that a
determination by an Appeals Office that a taxpayer is not
entitled to a collection alternative is not an abuse of
discretion if the taxpayer was not currently in compliance with
(continued...)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011