- 2 -
the grounds that P's previous submission to R's Office
of Appeals constituted a prior opportunity to dispute
the liability under sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), I.R.C. A
notice of determination sustaining the proposed levy
was thereupon issued under the signature of the same
Appeals officer who had denied P's previous submission.
P timely petitioned for review of the notice of
determination under sec. 6330(d), I.R.C.
Held: P did not have an "opportunity to dispute"
his underlying tax liability for 2000 within the
meaning of sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), I.R.C., by virtue of his
earlier request, still pending when the collection
action was initiated, for Appeals Office consideration
and abatement of the liability. Consequently, it was
error for the Appeals employee conducting P's hearing
under sec. 6330, I.R.C., to refuse to consider P's
challenges to the underlying tax liability, and P's
challenges are subject to de novo review in this Court.
Held, further, P's challenges to his underlying
tax liability are groundless. Accordingly, the refusal
to consider them at P's hearing was harmless error.
Held, further, the possibility that an Appeals
officer having "prior involvement" with respect to the
unpaid tax, within the meaning of sec. 6330(b)(3),
I.R.C., participated in the conduct of P's hearing is
not grounds for a remand in this case, since all of
petitioner's arguments against the collection action
were frivolous or groundless.
Robert L. Perkins, pro se.
James M. Klein, for respondent.
GALE, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),1 petitioner
seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with a levy
to collect petitioner's Federal income tax liability for taxable
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007