Jack A. Upchurch - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          Appeals officer a written statement of petitioner’s position                
          before the scheduled conference.  On July 24, 2002, respondent’s            
          Appeals officer and petitioner’s representative met for the                 
               On September 16, 2004, respondent sent petitioner a Notice             
          of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section              
          6320 and/or 6330.  The notice of determination stated that                  
          respondent had determined that the notice of deficiency regarding           
          petitioner’s 1996 gift tax return was valid.  Since the validity            
          of the notice of deficiency was the only issue raised at his                
          hearing and petitioner did not suggest any collection                       
          alternatives, respondent determined that the lien and levy                  
          actions “[balanced] the need for the efficient collection action            
          to be no more intrusive than necessary.”                                    
               On October 15, 2004, petitioner timely filed a petition                
          appealing respondent’s determination.  In his petition, the only            
          issue petitioner raised with respect to the notice of                       
          determination was that respondent’s Appeals officer erred in                
          determining that the notice of deficiency was valid for 1996.               
               Petitioner’s claim is essentially that the proposed                    
          collection action was based on an invalid assessment because                
          petitioner was not afforded the requisite notice of deficiency.             
          In petitioner’s view, the notice of deficiency he received on               
          March 22, 2000, was invalid because it referenced tax year 1995             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007