tAX cASE

[Paul Thomas, CPA]

Amazingly, I've heard little on this. Maybe the legal types can weigh in on
the case.

Edward W. Clough, TC Memo 2007-106

[Condor]

> Amazingly, I've heard little on this. Maybe the legal types can weigh in
> on the case.
>
> Edward W. Clough, TC Memo 2007-106

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner taxpayer challenged a decision by respondent
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (IRS) to proceed with the collection of
federal income tax liabilities. The taxpayer asserted that he never
received a valid notice of deficiency, that he was denied an opportunity to
challenge the existence of the underlying tax liability, that the IRS never
delivered statutory notice and demand for payment, and that he was denied a
face-to-face hearing.

OVERVIEW: A settlement officer denied the taxpayer's request for a
face-to-face hearing under I.R.C. § 6330 based on the frivolous nature of
the taxpayer's arguments. The taxpayer refused to participate in a
telephone hearing, and the Appeals Office issued a Notice of Determination.
On appeal, the court concluded that the taxpayer was precluded from
contesting his underlying liability for three years because he had received
a valid notice of deficiency under I.R.C. § 6212. He failed to present
credible evidence that the notices and demands were not issued for three
years as indicated on Forms 4340. The IRS did not err in refusing to grant
a face-to-face hearing because of the frivolous nature of the arguments;
thus, the court sustained the collection action for three years. However,
the Appeals office abused its discretion in sustaining the levy action for
one year where the hearing officer failed to obtain verification that the
IRS had issued a notice of deficiency. The court imposed a penalty under
I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1) based on the frivolous arguments. The fact that the
taxpayer obtained a favorable ruling for one year did not constrain the
court's authority to impose the penalty.

OUTCOME: The court sustained the collection action for three years but
concluded that the Appeals Office abused its discretion in sustaining the
levy action for a fourth year. The court imposed a penalty against the
taxpayer under I.R.C. § 6673(a).

Condor

[Dave Johnson]

On Jan 23, 10:54 am, "Paul Thomas, CPA"
<paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

I didn't read it to see the type of frivolous tax argument this guy
claimed but the end result - $6,000.00 penalty
- - - what is the legal term for stupidity?

[Paul Thomas, CPA]

"Dave Johnson" <nosp...@yahoo.com> wrote

Yeah, I was wondering myself what argument this guy used to piss off the
courts to the tune of $6,000.

--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA