- 5 -
notice, the Appeals Office determined that the proposed levy
should be sustained because all statutory and administrative
requirements had been met, petitioner had raised only frivolous
arguments, petitioner did not propose a viable collection
alternative, and the intrusiveness of the enforced collection was
necessary to provide for the efficient collection of the taxes
owed. However, in the attachment to the notice of determination,
the Appeals Office3 stated the following:
I have not verified whether the taxpayer received a
statutory notice of deficiency for form 1040 for the
calendar year ending December 31, 2000 and as such he
may be able to challenge the existence or amount of the
liability.
Neither the notice of determination nor the attachment indicates
that the Appeals Office considered the legal effect on the 2000
assessment of a failure by respondent to issue a notice of
deficiency for 2000 to petitioner.
On November 21, 2005, the petition in this case was filed.
Among his arguments, petitioner alleges that respondent’s
determination is invalid because (1) petitioner never received a
valid notice of deficiency, (2) petitioner was denied an
opportunity to challenge the existence of the underlying tax
liability for the years at issue, (3) respondent never assessed
3Although the attachment was unsigned, we infer from the
attachment that it was prepared by Officer Boudreau as it
summarizes in the first person what happened during the sec. 6330
proceeding.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007