- 2 -
discretion in allowing the collection action to proceed, and (2)
whether frivolous arguments advanced by petitioner warrant the
imposition by this Court of a section 6673(a) penalty. We hold
that respondent did not abuse his discretion and that a penalty
under section 6673 is not warranted at this time.
Background
At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioner
resided in McDonough, Georgia.
In the taxable year 2001, the year at issue, petitioner
earned income of approximately $200,000, mostly consisting of
wages he earned as director of sales of the Caribbean of Block
Drug, Company, Inc. Petitioner stipulated receiving this income.
Petitioner did not file a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax
Return, for the taxable year 2001. Respondent prepared a
substitute for return (SFR). The SFR reflected a taxable income
to petitioner of $205,593. On January 14, 2004, respondent
issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner for 2001. Petitioner
concedes that he received the notice of deficiency. In response
to a notice of intent to levy, petitioner filed Form 12153,
Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. On the Form 12153,
petitioner listed his reason for disagreeing with the proposed
levy action as “SFR Program--Math error.” Attached to the Form
1(...continued)
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011