Jeffrey Chou and Cindy Chou - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
               The levy is intrusive but it is appropriate in this                    
               instance to protect the government’s interest.  You                    
               have made no payments toward either 2000 or 2001 and                   
               there is no indication that the liability for 2000 will                
               be paid voluntarily.  In terms of alternatives to                      
               collection, you have filed an * * * [OIC] based on                     
               doubt as to liability, doubt as to collectibility, and                 
               effective tax administration.  That offer is being                     
               rejected on all three grounds.  It is the Service’s                    
               position that ultimately there will be no AMT liability                
               for 2001.  However, until the issue is finally decided                 
               in the various venues to which you have turned for                     
               relief the levy notice continues to be appropriate.                    
               On September 29, 2005, the IRS Appeals Office sent Mrs. Chou           
          a Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief                
          under the Equitable Relief Provision of Section 6015(f) that                
          denied Mrs. Chou’s request for innocent spouse relief for 2000              
          and 2001.  The notice simply stated, in relevant part:                      
               We’ve determined that, for the above tax year(s), we:                  
               -  cannot allow your request.                                          
          No further explanation was given.  No further explanation was               
          placed in the administrative file.                                          
               By notice served March 24, 2006, this case was set for trial           
          in San Francisco, California, on August 28, 2006.  On July 24,              
          2006, respondent filed a motion for continuance of trial,                   
          representing, in part:                                                      
                    5.  Respondent concedes that the determination set                
               forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning                        
               Collection Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330                    
               issued to petitioners on September 13, 2005, for                       
               petitioners’ income tax liability for the taxable year                 
               2001 will not be sustained.                                            








Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007