Kenneth A. Sapp - Page 6

                                        - 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