Robert Ho - Page 23

                                       - 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              
               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             

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011