Robert L. Perkins - Page 2




                                        - 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