- 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