Robert William Woods - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          this Court.2  Respondent timely assessed petitioner for the tax,            
          additions to tax, penalties, and interest for the years in issue.           
               On November 28, 2002, respondent sent petitioner a Letter              
          1058, Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to            
          a Hearing.  Petitioner timely filed Form 12153, Request for a               
          Collection Due Process Hearing, on December 19, 2002.                       
          Respondent’s Appeals Officer Gayla L. Owens conducted                       
          petitioner’s hearing on November 12, 2003.  Petitioner raised               
          only frivolous tax protester type arguments at the hearing,                 
          arguing that he did not have gross income as defined by sections            
          861, 911, and section 1.861-8(a)(4), Income Tax Regs.  Petitioner           
          also stated at the hearing that his First Amendment, Fifth                  
          Amendment, and Sixth Amendment individual rights had been                   
          violated; that he was denied meaningful due process of law; and             
          that decisions by lower courts, such as this Court and the                  
          Federal District Courts, are binding on the Internal Revenue                
          Service only for the particular taxpayer and years litigated.               
               On November 19, 2003, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of           
          Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320            
          and/or 6330 sustaining the proposed levy to collect petitioner’s            
          unpaid tax liabilities for the years in issue.  On December 16,             
          2003, petitioner timely filed his petition with this Court, again           


               2 Petitioner does not dispute that he received the notices             
          of deficiency.                                                              





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