- 5 -
automobile mechanic. It was his employer’s receipt of the notice
of levy that first brought the levy to petitioner’s attention.
On July 19, 2005, petitioner sent respondent a Form 12153,
Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (hearing request).
It was received by respondent 136 days after the issuance of the
final notice. Petitioner’s hearing request listed his address as
the Milford address.
An Appeals officer scheduled an equivalent hearing by
telephone with petitioner for October 28, 2005, but petitioner
did not appear.3
In May 2006, the Appeals Office issued a Decision Letter
Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of
the Internal Revenue Code (decision letter) to petitioner,
stating that the levy was appropriate and that petitioner did not
have the right to appeal the decision because, not having filed a
timely hearing request, he had been granted only an equivalent
hearing. That letter was mailed to the Milford address.
In June 2006, petitioner filed a petition with this Court
seeking to commence a lien or levy action under section
3 Petitioner did write to respondent’s Appeals Office to
reschedule the Oct. 28 telephone conference but, despite the fact
that he had almost a month in which to accomplish the task, chose
to wait until Oct. 25 to draft a letter requesting the
rescheduling of the conference. The letter did not reach the
Appeals officer until Nov. 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011