Edward W. Clough - Page 5

                                        - 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                 
         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           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007