- 3 -
12153 was a letter requesting “early referral to appeals.”
Petitioner did not offer any collection alternatives nor any
spousal defenses. An Appeals officer contacted petitioner to
schedule a conference via telephone. The Appeals officer spoke
with petitioner at the appointed time, and petitioner was given
an opportunity to discuss the issues. Petitioner stated that he
did not want to discuss the issues and wanted a response by mail.
On March 21, 2005, petitioner received a notice of determination
upholding the proposed levy action.
Petitioner filed a timely petition in this Court and was
cooperative throughout the stipulation and hearing process.
Discussion
Petitioner advances a plethora of tax protester arguments
that attack the underlying tax liability rather than respondent’s
collection actions. In particular, petitioner argues that the
exemption amount, pursuant to section 6012(a)(1)(A), is not
defined by statute, and that a lack of a valid control number
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. secs. 3501-
3520 (2000), excuses a failure to file returns.
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is
properly at issue, the Court will review the matter de novo.
However, where the validity of the underlying tax liability is
not properly at issue, the Court will review the Commissioner’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011