Don Mahoney - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          $10,500 toward petitioner’s then-outstanding 1997 liability, and            
          $750 toward petitioner’s 1998 liability.                                    
          Petitioner’s Section 6330 Hearing                                           
               On January 12, 2004, respondent issued to petitioner a Final           
          Notice--Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a              
          Hearing with respect to petitioner’s unpaid income tax                      
          liabilities for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, and 1999 (the years at              
          issue).  On February 10, 2004, petitioner sent to respondent a              
          Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing.  In the           
          Form 12153, petitioner stated that he “does not agree with the              
          notice of intent to levy in this case for the simple reason that            
          the taxpayer does not owe the tax stated in the notice.”                    
               Petitioner’s section 6330 hearing was assigned to Settlement           
          Officer Greg Clark (Settlement Officer Clark).  Petitioner’s                
          section 6330 hearing consisted of telephone calls and                       
          correspondence between Settlement Officer Clark and petitioner’s            
          representative and attorney herein, William D. Hartsock.                    
               Petitioner raised three issues during the section 6330                 
          hearing.  First, petitioner argued that respondent erroneously              
          applied payments petitioner made pursuant to an alleged                     
          installment agreement to petitioner’s 1985 tax liability because            
          the alleged installment agreement required that respondent apply            
          petitioner’s payments to the years at issue.  Second, petitioner            
          claimed that respondent should have applied alleged overpayments            







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

Last modified: November 10, 2007