- 8 - Petitioner also attempted to question whether the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax and the section 6662 penalty were overstated. In the November 19, 2004, facsimile petitioner also contended that the outstanding amounts of the addition to tax and penalty reflected on the NFTLs exceeded the 25 percent and 20 percent amounts, respectively, set forth in sections 6651(a)(1) and 6662 and, therefore, were invalid. Finally, petitioner contended that the hearing did not provide him with either substantive or procedural due process because: 1. There are no standards or procedures for conduct of the hearing. 2. There is no provision for making a written record of the hearing. 3. No burden of proof is provided, nor is taxpayer informed as to what is grounds for relief. 4. The presiding officer at the hearing is employed by the IRS, an adversary party, and therefore cannot be impartial for due process purposes. 5. No evidence is required or presented by IRS to establish that due process rights have been afforded. 6. The hearing is a post-deprivation hearing which does not comply with due process requirements. There is no due process requirement for filing the lien. 7. Taxpayer was not allowed at the hearing to present an offer in compromise. The provisions of [section] 6631 require that every IRS notice that includes an amount of interest required to be paid by the taxpayer must include a detailed computation of the interest charged. This was not done in this case as is demonstrated by the IRS’s notices.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007