- 21 -
attorneys in the Office of Chief Counsel. We note first that the
contacts here occurred after this case was docketed, putting them
outside the purview of Rev. Proc. 2000-43, supra. Even if the
proscriptions of Rev. Proc. 2000-43, supra, were applied, there
is no evidence or reason to suspect that the Chief Counsel
attorney assigned to petitioner's case advised the IRS employee
who made the decision to issue the Final Notice of Intent to Levy
to petitioner.
We are also mindful that petitioner at no point raised an
issue with the Appeals employees that required the exercise of
significant judgment. Prior to trial, petitioner never
identified the nature of any challenge he wished to make with
respect the underlying liabilities, even though advised by
Appeals that he was entitled to do so with respect to 1990
through 1993. He offered no specific collection alternative (or,
as a single filer, any spousal defenses). Rather, he presented a
myriad of procedural challenges, the resolution of which, in our
view, did not require the exercise of significant independent
judgment. To the extent the Forms 1040X submitted by petitioner,
which were reviewed by the Appeals employees, might be considered
evidence of the nature of his challenge to the underlying
liabilities, they contained tax protester arguments that do not
warrant serious consideration.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011