- 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 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007