- 9 -
provide him with the underlying assessment document(s) referenced
in the Form 4340 certification that had been sent to him.
The Court has also reviewed all of the materials forwarded
to respondent by petitioner in connection with the administrative
proceeding and, likewise, found them to contain “protester type”
and frivolous arguments.
Petitioner did not make any justiciable arguments or present
any information that properly addressed the merits of the
underlying tax liability,2 the validity of the assessment, or the
conduct of the proceeding or compliance with section 6330
requirements. Accordingly, the fact that petitioner was not
offered a face-to-face hearing was, in this instance, not an
abuse of discretion.
Appeals Officer’s Authority
There is little need to dwell on petitioner’s argument that
the administrative proceeding was flawed because respondent’s
representatives did not show that they were properly authorized
to represent the interests of the Secretary of the Treasury. To
the extent that petitioner’s argument implies that only the
Secretary of the Treasury could conduct a proper proceeding it is
frivolous. In the context of whether there was an abuse of
2 With respect to the 2001 tax year, petitioner supplied the
Appeals officer with an income tax return that had zeros in all
pertinent boxes. He did not show or explain why respondent’s
determination with respect to that year (for which petitioner had
not previously filed a return) was in error.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007