Jerre Marvine Wood - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          attachments which contained nothing but frivolous tax protester             
          arguments.  On April 19, 2005, petitioner sent respondent a                 
          letter captioned “Supplemental Letter to Request for Collection             
          Due Process Hearing”, in which petitioner continued to assert               
          frivolous arguments.                                                        
               Respondent’s Appeals officer reviewed petitioner’s                     
          correspondence and determined that all of petitioner’s                      
          contentions were frivolous.  On July 5, 2005, respondent’s                  
          Appeals officer sent petitioner a letter in which respondent                
          notified petitioner that respondent had received petitioner’s               
          request for a section 6330 hearing and scheduled a telephone                
          conference for August 11, 2005, at 2:30 p.m.  Respondent also               
          offered petitioner the opportunity to reschedule the telephone              
          conference and the opportunity to conduct the section 6330                  
          hearing through correspondence.  Respondent’s letter also                   
          directed petitioner to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS)                    
          publication, “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”, available           
          on the IRS’s Web site.  In letters dated July 19, 23, 25, 27, and           
          30, 2005, petitioner continued to assert only frivolous tax                 
          protester arguments.                                                        
               On August 11, 2005, the date of the scheduled telephone                
          conference, respondent’s Appeals officer attempted to contact               
          petitioner but was unsuccessful.  Following the unsuccessful                
          attempt to contact petitioner, respondent’s Appeals officer                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011