- 12 -
showed that petitioner had no other debt. Petitioner, who early
in the collections stage had more than $400,000 in net worth and
more than $2,000 per month in disposable income, was seeking
leniency for not paying taxes on his million dollar gambling
winnings. Under these facts and circumstances, it was not an
abuse of discretion for respondent’s settlement officer to
sustain the filing of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien.
We briefly address petitioner’s assignment of error that
respondent erroneously filed the Notice of Federal Tax Lien. No
facts in the petition indicate any basis for this assertion, but
petitioner’s opposition to summary judgment reveals his view that
respondent sent the notification letter late; i.e., beyond the 5-
business-day period as provided in section 6320, and therefore,
the lien is invalid. In support of his view, petitioner points
out that the Notice of Federal Tax Lien shows the date the
document was prepared and signed as May 11, 2005. According to
petitioner, since the notification of the lien filing was not
mailed to him until May 19, 2005, 6 business days later, the lien
is invalid, and it was an abuse of discretion for respondent to
sustain the lien filing.
We disagree that May 11, the date the lien notice was
prepared and signed, has any consequence in this case. The
notice of lien sent to petitioner, the statement of the Appeals
officer, and the Appeals Case Memorandum referral all say that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007