- 3 -
In his June 27, 2005, hearing request, petitioner stated
that he did not receive a valid notice of deficiency, but he did
not specifically explain why what he did receive was invalid.
Petitioner also advanced queries normally posed by “tax
protesters”, such as that the Appeals Officer did not “identify
the statute that makes * * * [him] ‘liable to pay’”. Petitioner
did not accept respondent’s certification of assessment and
payment and, instead, wished to see the original assessment
records and related documents. In addition to his response,
petitioner also sent the Appeals officer a package of materials,
including income tax forms on which zeros were placed in the
income and tax “boxes”.
Respondent’s Appeals officer declined to work or meet with
Jeffrey Hubacek, petitioner’s representative, because Mr. Hubacek
had been barred from practicing before the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). The Appeals officer advised petitioner that she
would not offer him a face-to-face hearing because she found that
his arguments were either frivolous or involved issues which
could not be considered by the Appeals Office, such as objections
on moral or political grounds.
Instead of a face-to-face meeting, petitioner and the
Appeals officer engaged in a telephone conference on January 25,
2006. Prior to that conference, petitioner was sent a copy of a
Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007