- 4 -
On December 29, 2004, respondent issued to petitioners a
notice of Federal tax lien filing and your right to a hearing
(notice of tax lien) with respect to their taxable year 1988.
On January 5, 2005, in response to the notice of intent to
levy, petitioners mailed to respondent Form 12153, Request for a
Collection Due Process Hearing (Form 12153), and requested a
hearing with respondent’s Appeals Office (Appeals Office).
On January 18, 2005, in response to the notice of tax lien,
petitioners mailed to respondent Form 12153 and requested a
hearing with the Appeals Office.
In Forms 12153 that petitioners submitted with respect to
the notice of intent to levy and the notice of tax lien, respec-
tively, petitioners stated:
Income from a partnership was reported on the 1988 Form
1120 filed by Michael C. Hollen, D.D.S., P.C. That
same income is alleged by the I.R.S. to be reported by
Dr. and Mrs. Hollen. That constitutes double taxation.
That issue was addressed by the Supreme Court in U.S.
v. Supple-Biddle Hardware Co., 265 U.S. 189, “Such a
duplication, even in an exigent war tax measure is to
be avoided.” [Reproduced literally.]
On May 6, 2005, a settlement officer with the Appeals Office
(settlement officer) held a telephonic conference (May 6, 2005
conference) with petitioner Michael C. Hollen (Mr. Hollen) with
respect to the notice of intent to levy and the notice of tax
lien. During that conference, Mr. Hollen raised the following
five issues with respect to petitioners’ taxable year 1988:
(1) The correctness of the underlying tax liability, (2) the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007