John Haynes, Jr. - Page 10




                                        - 9 -                                         
               Petitioner’s position is twofold; he challenges both the               
          underlying liability, as well as respondent’s assessment                    
          procedures with respect to his case.  With respect to the first             
          prong, however, because petitioner received a notice of                     
          deficiency for taxable years 1999 and 2000, but did not file a              
          petition with this Court, we cannot consider the underlying                 
          liability.  Therefore, our inquiry rests solely with the question           
          of whether respondent’s assessment procedures and, in particular,           
          his rejection of petitioner’s collection alternative, were done             
          arbitrarily, and without sound basis in fact or law.  Id.                   
               Petitioner’s argument that respondent should rescind or                
          abandon the collection action based on the amount of money he               
          anticipated receiving from refunds claimed on Federal income tax            
          returns is, at best, speculatively optimistic.  Mr. Callanan                
          reasonably explained to petitioner on more than one occasion that           
          it would be impossible for him to rescind the collection action             
          based on petitioner’s proposal, especially where petitioner had             
          not yet filed any amended returns for taxable years 1999 or 2000,           
          and where his return for taxable year 2004 was not even due for             
          another 4 months.  Petitioner presented no additional evidence,             
          aside from his assertion that refunds would be due to him from              
          the aforementioned returns, in support of his proposal.                     
               Despite his assertion that he was unable to remit the amount           
          of liabilities owed, petitioner did not present any evidence that           







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

Last modified: November 10, 2007