- 5 -
Forms 12153. Petitioner did not provide financial information,
nor did he propose any collection alternatives.
On July 1, 2005, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320
and/or 6330 (notice of determination) with respect to the years
at issue. Respondent determined that petitioner’s arguments were
frivolous, that the arguments went to the underlying tax
liability, and that petitioner was precluded from challenging the
underlying tax liability because he had received a notice of
deficiency.3 After verifying that all administrative and
statutory requirements were met, respondent sustained the
proposed collection actions.4 Respondent warned petitioner that,
if he continued to raise frivolous arguments, the Court could
impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1).
3 Apparently, during the sec. 6330 hearing, petitioner also
argued that the Federal tax lien should be withdrawn because
petitioner submitted at least two sec. 6330 hearing requests
before the notice of intent to levy and the notice of Federal tax
lien were issued. Respondent determined that petitioner’s right
to a sec. 6330 hearing did not arise until after the notice of
intent to levy and the notice of Federal tax lien were issued,
that the previous sec. 6330 hearing requests were premature, and
that petitioner did not otherwise establish why the Federal tax
lien was improperly filed. In his petition, petitioner does not
argue that the Federal tax lien was improperly filed. Thus, we
find petitioner has conceded the issue. See Rule 331(b)(4).
4 To determine whether assessment procedures were followed
and whether all administrative and statutory requirements were
met, Ms. Smith relied on TXMODA transcripts of account for
petitioner’s tax years at issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007