- 11 -
support of his position that respondent’s refusal to withdraw or
release the NFTL is an abuse of discretion.8 According to
respondent, neither the rejection of petitioner’s proposed
collection alternatives nor the other grounds raised by
petitioner give rise to the relief that he seeks. For the
following reasons, we agree with respondent.
Petitioner’s claim that it was improper to file the NFTL
while the 2003 offer was under consideration is easily rejected.
Unlike section 6331(k)(1), which precludes a levy while an offer-
in-compromise is under consideration, there is no such
restriction in section 6321, which provides: “If any person
liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after
demand, the amount * * * shall be a lien in favor of the United
States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or
personal, belonging to such person.”
8 Petitioner also argues that the NFTL is invalid because:
(1) He did not receive notice as required under sec. 6320(a)(2) -
a moot point as a timely sec. 6320(c) hearing was requested,
Call v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-289, affd. 230 Fed. Appx.
758 (9th Cir. 2007); and (2) the NFTL was not signed, which is
not necessary. See Milam v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-94.
Petitioner also complains about the manner in which he was
treated by various Internal Revenue Service employees in
connection with the collection of his outstanding tax
liabilities. We need not address those complaints, however,
because even if legitimate, none would have any impact on his
entitlement to the relief he seeks in this proceeding.
Among other complaints raised by petitioner that will not be
addressed here are: (1) Respondent took an unreasonably long
time to consider the 2000/2003 offer; and (2) Mr. Barry is
incompetent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007