- 6 -
and administrative procedures had been met; (iii) no notice and
demand for payment was received for any of the liabilities at
issue; (iv) petitioner had not received a notice of deficiency
for any of the years at issue; (v) AO Ford abused his discretion
in failing to hold a hearing before making the determination; and
(vi) AO Ford did not analyze whether the proposed collection
activity balanced the need for the efficient collection of taxes
with petitioner's legitimate concern that any collection activity
be no more intrusive than necessary.
In response to the petition, respondent's Office of Chief
Counsel referred petitioner's case back to Appeals on July 24,
2002, in order to address the allegations in the petition and to
prepare a supplemental notice of determination. The attorney in
respondent's Office of Chief Counsel who was assigned to
petitioner's case collaborated with Appeals employees to develop
the supplemental notice of determination. The first contact
between Appeals and Chief Counsel occurred on July 24, 2002,
after petitioner's case had been docketed in this court. On May
1, 2003, Appeals issued to petitioner a Supplemental Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
and/or 6330 (2003 supplemental determination).3
3 After receiving the 2003 supplemental determination,
petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on
the grounds that the notice of determination was invalid, as
evidenced by respondent's effort to augment it with the 2003
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011