TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Jacqueline J. Miller-Wagenknecht
Docket Number: 11219-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 08/12/2009
Pages: 23

UNITED STATES TAX COUR T WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 JACQUELINE J . MILLER-WAGENKNECHT, Petitioner , v . ) Docket No . 11219-07L . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . O R D E R On June 10, 2009, the Court received from the Court's official reporting company a transcript of the oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial of this case . After consideration of that bench opinion transcript received on June 10, 2009, the Court directed the Court's official reporting company to correct transcription errors and to add full citations . On June 17, 2009, the Court received from .the Court's official reporting company a corrected transcript of the oral findings of fact and opinion . Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the corrected transcript of the oral findings of fact and opinion of the transcript of the'trial in the above case before Judge David Gustafson at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on June 3, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) David Gustafson Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . August 12, 2009 SERVED AUG 17 2009 4 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge David Gustafson June 3, 2009 2 Miller-Wagenknecht v . Commissioner Docket 11219-07L 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 4 oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case and the 5 following represents the Court's oral Findings of Fact 6 and Opinion . The oral Findings of Fact and opinio n 7 shall not be relied on as precedent in any other case . 8 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 9 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Interna l 10 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 11 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 12 This case is an appeal by Petitioner 13 Jacqueline J . Miller-Wagenknecht, pursuant to 2 6 14 U .S .C . section 6330(d), asking this Court to review 15 the IRS's notice of determination sustaining a 16 proposed levy to collect Petitioner's unpaid income 17 tax for the for the six years 1997 through 2002 . 18 Certain issues in the case were resolved by the 19 Court's order of March 5, 2009, granting in par t 20 Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed 21 December 24, 2008 . 22 The Court identified four issues remaining 23 for trial : 1) whether the Office of Appeals abused 24 its discretion in verifying, under section 6330(c)(1), 25 that the statutory notice for 2002 was properly maile d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 to Petitioner's last-known address, in compliance with 2 section 6212(b)(1) ; 2) whether Petitioner's underlying 3 liability for 2002 is as determined by the IRS ; 4 3) whether Settlement Officer Vuicich was 5 impartial, or whether instead she a) had prio r 6 involvement with Petitioner and/or b) engaged in 7 improper ex-parte communications with her Appeals team 8 member regarding Petitioner's taxes ; and 4) whether 9 the office of Appeals abused its discretion b y 10 rejecting the collection alternative offered by Ms . 11 Miller-Wagenknecht . 12 The case was tried June 1, 2009, i n 13 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania . As to the first of those 14 four issues, Respondent conceded at the commencement 15 of trial that the statutory Notice of Deficiency for 16 2002 was not mailed to Petitioner's last-known address 17 and that the office of Appeals abused its discretion 18 in verifying, under section 6330(c)(1), that the 19 statutory notice for 2002 was properly mailed to 20 Petitioner's last-known address in compliance wit h 21 section 6212(b)(1) . This concession also removed from 22 the case the second issue, i .e ., whether Petitioner's 23 underlying liability for 2002 is as determined in the 24 statutory notice . However, we sometimes include facts 25 about 2002 in the following discussion because the six Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 years were handled together administratively . 2 Respondent's concessions left two issues to 3 be tried as to proposed collection of liabilities for 4 the other five years, 1997 through 2001 : 1) whether 5 Settlement Officer Vuicich was impartial ; and 2 ) 6 whether the Office of Appeals abused its discretion by 7 rejecting the collection alternative offered b y 8 Petitioner . For the reasons explained below, we will 9 hold for the Respondent and sustain the proposed levy 10 as to Petitioner's liabilities for the years 199 7 11 through 2001 . 12 Findings of fact . 13 The parties' stipulation of facts i s 14 incorporated herein by reference . We further find the 15 following facts : 16 Petitioner did not file income tax returns 17 for the six tax years 1997 through 2002 . As a result, 18 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) prepared a 19 substitute for return for each year, pursuant t o 20 section 6020(b) . For these six years, the IRS issued 21 to Petitioner three statutory notices of deficiency 22 pursuant to section 6212 : On April 14, 2004, the IRS 23 issued a Notice of Deficiency to Petitioner for tax 24 year 2002 (no longer at issue here) . On August 11, 25 2004, the IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency t o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 Petitioner for tax years 1997, 1998 and 1999 . On that 2 same date, the IRS also issued a separate Notice o f 3 Deficiency to Petitioner for tax years 2000 and 2001 . 4 For the years 1997 through 2001, there is no dispute 5 that the IRS mailed and that Petitioner received the 6 notices of deficiency . 7 After receiving the notices of deficiency, 8 Petitioner submitted to the IRS, in August 2004, for 9 each of the five years still at issue here (and i n 10 December 2004 for the year 2002) a lengthy "Notice of 11 Affidavit Statement in Protest of Internal Revenu e 12 Code section 6011 . (Section 6011(a) requires a 13 taxpayer to "make a return . . . according to th e 14 forms . . .prescribed by the Secretary .") These papers 15 contain frivolous and tiresomely familiar tax- 16 protester arguments that conjoint microscopicall y 17 legalistic pseudo-analysis with a flagrant disregard 18 of the obvious (e .g ., taxes are voluntary, the 19 Internal Revenue Code is not law, only federa l 20 employees must pay taxes) . Petitioner explains that, 21 in making these arguments, she had fallen under th e 22 influence of bad advice from unnamed professionals but 23 that she later disclaimed these arguments . 24 Petitioner did not petition the Tax Court 25 with respect to the Notices of Deficiency (Stip . ¶ Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 12), so the IRS assessed the proposed tax liabilities 2 for 1997 through 2001 and issued Notices of Balanc e 3 Due on January 3, 2005 . Petitioner failed to pay the 4 amounts due, so the IRS issued to her a "Final Notice 5 of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a 6 Hearing for tax years 1997 through 2001, dated May 16, 7 2005 . (Ex . 20-J ; Stip ¶ 14 . ) 8 On April 2, 2005, Petitioner timel y 9 requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing for 10 2002 by submitting a Form 12153, Request for a 11 Collection Due Process Hearing (Ex . 21-J) . On June 12 10, 2005, Petitioner submitted another Form 12153 (Ex . 13 22-J) which was a timely request for a CDP hearing for 14 tax years 1997 through 2001 . Form 12153 includes an 15 item "Type of Tax/Tax Form Number(s)", and in th e 16 corresponding blank, Petitioner typed in "1040A" for 17 1997 through 2001 and "1040" for 2002 . Her form for 18 2002 stated, "You haven't told me what is wrong with 19 the original return I filed ." Evidently, she wa s 20 referring to her "Notice of Affidavit", since she had 21 not filed a Form 1040 tax return . Neither of the 22 Forms 12153 states any frivolous position (nor indeed 23 any position on any specific issue) . 24 On June 1, 2005, Petitioner had sent the IRS 25 a request (Ex . 23-J) not on Form 12153, asking that Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 she have a face-to-face hearing and that she be 2 allowed to audio-record the hearing . This request was 3 apparently not in the record before the Court when it 4 issued its orders of March 5 and May 11, 2009, but it 5 does not change the outcome . 6 To be entitled to a face-to-face hearing for 7 1997 to 2001, Petitioner needed to show non-frivolous 8 issues that merited such a hearing . To support a 9 finding of an abuse of discretion from the denial of a 10 face-to-face hearing, Petitioner needed to plead it in 11 her petition and show some respect in which he r 12 presentation could not be adequately made in writing 13 or on the telephone . She has shown neither of these 14 things . 15 On her Forms 12153, Petitioner gave a n 16 Akron, Ohio, address, but she sent the forms to an IRS 17 address in Philadelphia . On June 13, 2005, her case 18 was assigned to an Appeals Office in Cleveland, Ohio . 19 Personnel in that office included Douglas Kane, wh o 20 until about 2000 had some responsibility in a prior 21 IRS job for collecting Petitioner's liabilities for 22 1997 and 1998 (and possibly 1999) ; and Susan Vuicich, 23 who previously had had some responsibility regarding 24 the tax liability of Petitioner's ex-husband . By no 25 later than August 19, 2005, personnel in tha t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 Cleveland office began making entries on the "Case 2 Activity Record" for Petitioner's case . (Ex . 29-J .) 3 Petitioner recalls getting a telephone call 4 from Ms . Vuicich, which she believes occurred before 5 November 23, 2005, in which Ms . Vuicich aske d 6 Petitioner to send copies of Petitioner's tax returns 7 for 1997 through 2002 . The Court is persuaded tha t 8 some such telephone call took place ; but to the extent 9 Petitioner has the burden to prove the precise details 10 of the timing of that call, we find that she failed to 11 meet that burden . However, the precise timing is not 12 material . Petitioner believes that the call too k 13 place before her case was assigned, (an assertion 14 contradicted by the Case Activity Record), and sh e 15 speculates that the purpose of the request was not to 16 process her CDP request but instead pertained in some 17 manner to her ex-husband (a speculation not supported 18 by any evidence, and not connected by Petitioner to 19 any coherent plan or motive of Ms . Vuicichi, malignant 20 or benign) . 21 An entry on the Case Activity Record dated 22 November 23, 2005, shows that on that date thre e 23 persons in the Appeals Office -- Leonard Bartold, 24 Dewayne Turk, and Pamela Bowling -- discusse d 25 Petitioner's case and "determined that taxpayer is Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 raising frivolous issues and case should be worked by 2 settlement officer . " 3 The hearing was originally scheduled fo r 4 January 30, 2006, but due to scheduling conflicts, the 5 CDP hearing for all the years in dispute -- 199 7 6 through 2002 -- was not held until February 15, 2007 . 7 In the interim, between the CDP request and the actual 8 CDP hearing, Petitioner and the IRS exchanged a series 9 of telephone calls and written correspondence . 10 Through these contacts, Petitioner was advised tha t 11 although the issues raised in her Forms 12153 were not 12 considered frivolous, her previous communications with 13 the IRS did include contentions that Courts have found 14 to be frivolous or groundless . As a result , 15 Petitioner was asked to identify any non-frivolous 16 issue she intended to discuss . The IRS also advised 17 Petitioner that she was not entitled to a face-to-face 18 conference if she had no legitimate, non-frivolou s 19 issues to discuss . The IRS further advised Petitioner 20 that, although she was entitled to contest he r 21 underlying liability for 2002 at the CDP hearin g 22 because she did not receive the Notice of Deficiency 23 for that year, unless she provided the IRS with the 24 non-frivolous arguments that she intended to raise 25 concerning the underlying liability, a face-to-face Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 1 1 hearing would not be provided . The IRS Office o f 2 Appeals requested (among other things) that Petitioner 3 file Forms 1040 for the years at issue and that sh e 4 submit financial information (on Form 433-A) t o 5 support any collection alternatives she wished to 6 propose . (See, e .g ., Ex . 24-J . ) 7 However, Petitioner inferred from th e 8 Settlement Officer's tone -- but without any othe r 9 evidence -- that Ms . Vuicich must have discussed her 10 case with Mr . Kane (who did previous collectio n 11 activity concerning Petitioner) ; and Petitione r 12 resented that Appeals personnel were discussing her 13 case among themselves outside of the hearing . 14 Petitioner's testimony -- which was uncontradicted -- 15 was that Settlement Officer Vuicich was impolite , 16 disrespectful, and hostile, and that she yelled at 17 Petitioner over the telephone . We accept tha t 18 Petitioner's testimony was sincere and that it must 19 have some basis in fact, but we also conclude that 20 Petitioner's impression may have been exaggerated by 21 her own suspicions and prejudice against the IRS 22 personnel . 23 In any event, Petitioner admits that because 24 Appeals denied her a face-to-face hearing and denied 25 her the opportunity to audio-record the hearing, and Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 2 1 because of the ill treatment she felt she ha d 2 received, she got frustrated, decided not to submit 3 Forms 1040 or financial information, and thought , 4 "Forget it ; I'll go back to this paper war ." 5 Petitioner outlined her arguments in severa l 6 affidavits dated February 2007 . (Exs . 25-J throug h 7 9 28-J .) Most of the arguments raised in the affidavits are frivolous . Petitioner's CDP hearing proceeded as a 10 telephone conference on February 15, 2007 . Th e 11 settlement officer acknowledged that she did not have 12 enough time to review the voluminous exhibit s 13 submitted by Petitioner, so she offered Petitioner a 14 subsequent, telephone hearing after she had time t o 15 review them . Petitioner requested the subsequent 16 hearing be scheduled for mid-March to allow her to 17 review additional material relating to the years a t 18 issue that she expected to be receiving as a result of 19 a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request . The 20 settlement officer agreed, and the subsequent hearing 21 was scheduled for March 9, 2007 . The March 9, 2007, 22 conference was rescheduled to March 30, 2007 . The 23 subsequent telephone conference was held on March 30, 24 2007, and continued on April 12, 2007 . 25 On April 20, 2007, Appeals issued to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 3 1 Petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning 2 Collection Action(s) under section 6320 and/or 6330, 3 which upheld the proposed use of levy to collec t 4 Petitioner's unpaid taxes . 5 On May 21, 2007, Petitioner timely filed a 6 petition with this Court for a review of tha t 7 determination . At the time Petitioner filed her 8 petition, she resided in Pennsylvania . In he r 9 petition, Petitioner raised numerous contentions, many 10 of which are frivolous . However, the petition als o 11 raises several non-frivolous points : i) that th e 12 officer who conducted her hearing was not impartial as 13 required by section 6330(b)(3), ii) that the hearing 14 officer engaged in prohibited ex-parte communications 15 with other IRS employees, and iii) that the Office of 16 Appeals failed to consider the collection alternative 17 that Ms . Miller-Wagenknecht had offered . Those points 18 were the subject of the trial held by this Court o n 19 June 1, 2009 . 20 Opinion . 21 A . Collection Due Process principles . 22 If a taxpayer fails to pay any Federa l 23 income tax liability after notice and demand, section 24 6331(a) authorizes the IRS to collect the tax by levy 25 on the taxpayer's property . However, Congress ha s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 14 1 added to chapter 64 of the Code certain provisions (i n 2 subchapter C, Part I, and in subchapter D, Part I) as 3 "Due Process for Collections," and those provision s 4 must be complied with before the IRS can proceed with 5 a levy : The IRS must first issue a final notice o f 6 intent to levy and notify the taxpayer of the right to 7 an administrative hearing before the Office o f 8 Appeals . Sec . 6330(a) and (b) (1) . 9 Section 6330(b), entitled "Right to Fair 10 Hearing", sets out certain principles that are to 11 govern that so-called collection due process (CDP) 12 hearing . One of those principles is in sectio n 13 6330(b)(3), which is entitled "Impartial Officer" and 14 provides : 15 "The hearing under this subsection shall be 16 conducted by an officer or employee who has had n o 17 prior involvement with respect to the unpaid tax . . ." 18 To further implement this impartialit y 19 principle, Appeals Officers are not allowed to have 20 ex-parte communications with other IRS employees that 21 would appear to compromise the independence of their 22 review function . See Industrial Investors v . 23 Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2007-93, 93 TCM (CCH) 1126, 24 1128 (2007) ("The Commissioner then made the guarantee 25 of impartiality part of the IRS's standard operating Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 15 1 procedure by issuing Revenue Procedure 2000-43, 2000- 2 2 C .B . 404") . Ex-parte communications are 3 "communications that take place between Appeals an d 4 another Service function without the participation of 5 the taxpayer or the taxpayer's representative" and are 6 "prohibited to the extent that such communication s 7 appear to compromise the independence of Appeals ." 8 Rev . Proc . 2000-43, Q&A-1, sec . 3, 2002-2 C .B . 404, 9 405 . However, generally, "[i]ntra-Appeal s 10 communications during the deliberation process do not 11 compromise or appear to compromise that independence 12 [and] Appeals employees may communicate freely with 13 other Appeals employees without inviting th e 14 taxpayer/representative to participate ." Id . , Q&A-3, 15 2000-2 C .B . at 405 . 16 At the CDP hearing, the Appeals Officer must 17 make a determination whether the proposed collection 18 action may proceed . The Appeals Officer is required 19 to take into consideration several things : 20 First, the Appeals Officer must verify that 21 the requirements of any applicable law and 22 administrative procedure have been met by IRS 23 personnel (see sec . 6330 (c) (3) (A)) . As to the five 24 years still at issue here, those requirements were 25 met : Statutory notices of deficiency (Exs . 12-J, 13- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 16 1 J ; Stip . ¶ 11) and then a notice of intent to lev y 2 (ex . 20-J ; Stip . ¶ 14) were issued to petitioner ; and 3 Petitioner alleges in her petition no defect of that 4 sort . 5 Second, the Appeals Officer must consider 6 any collection alternatives proposed by the taxpayer 7 (see sec . 6330(c)(3)(B), citing sec . 6330(c)(2)) ; and 8 third, the Appeals Officer must determine "whether any 9 proposed collection action balances the need for th e 10 efficient collection of taxes with the legitimat e 11 concern of the person that any collection action be no 12 more intrusive than necessary" (see sec . 6330(c)(3)) . 13 We will discuss in a moment the Appeals Officer' s 14 rejection of Petitioner's proposal as that bears on 15 those last two requirements . 16 Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(B) a taxpayer 17 may challenge the underlying tax liability in a CD P 18 hearing, but only if he "did not . . .have an opportunity 19 to dispute such tax liability ." Because Petitione r 20 received a Notice of Deficiency for the remainin g 21 years in issue -- 1997 through 2001 -- she had a prior 22 opportunity to dispute them . The fact that she di d 23 not avail herself of that opportunity does not negate 24 the fact that the opportunity existed . Thus, she was 25 not entitled to challenge her underlying liability for Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 these five years in her CDP hearing nor to raise it i n 17 2 this lawsuit . 3 If, after the CDP hearing the Office of 4 Appeals then issues a notice of determination to 5 proceed with the proposed levy, the taxpayer may 6 appeal that determination to this Court within 30 7 days, as Petitioner has done, and we now "hav e 8 jurisdiction with respect to such matter ." Sec . 9 6330(d)(1) . 10 B . The impartiality of the settlement 11 officer . 12 At the CDP hearing and in her petition, Ms . 13 Miller - Wagenknecht disputed the impartiality of the 14 settlement officer . Her dispute is two-fold : 15 1) "Prior involvement " with the tax at 16 issue . 17 Throughout the CDP hearing Petitioner 18 repeatedly asserted that Settlement Officer Susa n 19 Vuicich was not "impartial " because she had had "prior 20 involvement " in the case . Petitioner contends tha t 21 Settlement Officer Vuicich ' s supposed prio r 22 involvement made her later involvement in the CDP 23 hearing improper . We earlier denied Respondent' s 24 motion on this issue, in order to allow the trial of 25 the factual question whether Settlement Officer Susan Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 8 1 Vuicich had prior, prohibited involvement with 2 Petitioner's liabilities at issue here . 3 However, Petitioner-was unable to come forward 4 with any evidence of such prior involvement . She 5 suggested that Ms . Vuicich's November 2005 request for 6 Petitioner's tax returns was "prior involvement," but 7 that request was in fact made after Petitioner' s 8 request for a CDP hearing and after the Cleveland 9 office became responsible to conduct the hearing . 10 Petitioner also suggested that Ms . Vuicich's prio r 11 work related to liabilities of Petitioner's ex-husband 12 constituted prohibited "prior involvement," but he r 13 ex-husband's liabilities are distinct from 14 Petitioner's own liabilities . Petitioner testified 15 that because the settlement officer declined in a 16 conversation with Petitioner to deny whether she had 17 prior involvement, Petitioner could tell, especially 18 in view of her tone and demeanor, that she must have 19 had such involvement . But Petitioner's hunch and 20 inference is insufficient to carry her burden on this 21 issue . 22 2 . "Ex-parte communications" by the 23 settlement officer . 24 Petitioner's second challenge to the 25 impartiality of the settlement officer asserts Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e 1 9 1 improper ex-parte communications with other IR S 2 employees . Petitioner contends that one employee in 3 the Cleveland Appeals Office -- Douglas Kane -- had 4 involvement until 2000 in collection of Petitioner' s 5 liability for some of the years at issue, and that the 6 team structure of Appeals much have resulted i n 7 discussions between Mr . Kane (drawing on hi s 8 experience collecting from Petitioner) and Ms . 9 Vuicich . However, Petitioner cannot show that in fact 10 there were any such communications, and her contention 11 boils down to the untenably broad suggestion that Mr . 12 Kane's mere presence in the settlement officer' s 13 location compromised her impartiality . We cannot 14 agree . There is no evidence of ex-part e 15 communication . 16 C . Failure to consider collection 17 alternative . 18 Petitioner contends that the office o f 19 Appeals abused its discretion by declining her offer 20 to pay some portion of her tax liability over a 20- 21 year period (i .e . a proposed installment agreement) . 22 However, the settlement officer's exercise o f 23 discretion was reasonable in light of two deliberate 24 refusals by Petitioner : 25 First, Petitioner refused to file her tax Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 2 0 1 returns . A taxpayer must be in compliance with all 2 filing and paying requirements before an installment 3 agreement can be considered . See Giamelli v . 4 Commissioner , 129 T .C . 107, 111-112 (2007) ; Internal 5 Revenue Manual (IRM) pts . 5 .14 .1 .2(9)(e), 5 .14 .1 .5 .1, 6 5 .14 .1 .3(4)(d) (July 12, 2005) . This reason justified 7 the settlement officer's decision . 8 Second, during a section 6330 hearing , 9 "[t]axpayers will be expected to provide all relevant 10 information requested by Appeals, including financial 11 statements, for its consideration of the facts an d 12 issues involved in the hearing ." Section 301 .6330- 13 1(e)(1), Proced . & Admin . Regs . An Appeals officer 14 may not consider a collection alternative unless the 15 taxpayer has provided adequate financial information, 16 such as a current Form 433-A . See Rev . Proc . 2003-71, 17 sec . 4 .03, 2003-2 C .B . 517, 518 ; see also IRM pt . 18 5 .14 .2 .2 .1(1), (5) (July 12, 2005), 5 .14 .7 .4 .1(5) 19 (Sept . 30, 2004) . The settlement officer wa s 20 following the IRS's administrative guidelines when she 21 asked Petitioner to complete Form 433-A . See IRM pt . 22 5 .14 .2 .2 .1(1), 5 .14 .7 .4 .1(5) . It was not an abuse of 23 discretion for the settlement officer to rejec t 24 Petitioner's proposed collection alternative whe n 25 Petitioner failed to submit a Form 433-A upon request . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 2 1 1 See Prater v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2007-241 ; 2 3 Chandler v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2005-99 ; Roman v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-20 . 4 D . Fair hearing . 5 The caption to section 6330(b) refers to a 6 taxpayer's "Right to Fair Hearing," and much o f 7 Petitioner's testimony addressed her three main 8 complaints of unfairness in the process . 9 First, Petitioner complains of 10 communications (which she calls "ex-parte " 11 communications) between Ms . Vuicich and other Appeals 12 Office employees who had no asserted prior involvement 13 with collection of Petitioner's liabilities . I t 14 appears that Petitioner's actual grievance is founded 15 on her belief that the Appeals Officer conducting the 16 hearing should have had no consultation with anyone 17 else in the IRS . It made Petitioner uneasy to think 18 of IRS personnel working both on her liabilities and 19 on those of her ex-husband . It made Petitioner uneasy 20 to think of IRS personnel talking about her when she 21 was not present and able to defend herself . I n 22 effect, Petitioner wished she had had a settlement 23 officer who was not only impartial but als o 24 uninformed, sequestered, not only from the world but 25 also from colleagues in Appeals . The law certainly Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 2 2 1 does not require that, and common sense would counse l 2 agains t 3 Second, Petitioner feels she should hav e 4 gotten a completely fresh start with the IRS when she 5 requested a CDP hearing . Petitioner conceives tha t 6 she had turned a new leaf and abandoned the frivolous 7 arguments that bad advisors had earlier led her into, 8 and she argues that thereafter she should not hav e 9 been tarred by those prior positions, but in fact, at 10 the time she filed her CDP hearing request an d 11 throughout that proceeding, she persisted i n 12 maintaining various frivolous positions, if not always 13 the identical frivolous positions she had originally 14 asserted . Petitioner never did file actual ta x 15 returns, but on one of her hearing requests she stated 16 that she had, thereby implicitly arguing that he r 17 "Notice of Affidavit in Protest" was an adequate tax 18 return . It would have been naive and irresponsible 19 for the Office of Appeals not to read her submissions 20 in light of her history, not to treat Petitioner as a 21 potential tax protestor, and not to insist that she 22 articulate non-frivolous positions . It evidentl y 23 frustrated Petitioner to be treated this way, but this 24 was a reasonable consequence of Petitioner's own 25 arguments, both before and during the CDP process . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 2 3 1 Third, Petitioner complains that the 2 settlement officer was hostile to her . One can 3 imagine a circumstance in which a settlement officer's 4 behavior is so intimidating that .it effectively 5 deprives the taxpayer of a hearing, but Petitioner was 6 unable to .show any circumstance approaching that point 7 or any respect in which that alleged hostilit y 8 actually, impeded Petitioner's presentation of her cas e in the CDP hearing . Petitioner is intelligent , 10 articulate, and persistent ; and the CDP hearing lasted 11 over 22 months (from her request in June 2005 to the 12 notice of determination in April 2007) . Petitione r 13 had every opportunity to present information and 14 proposals, but she failed to do so against th e 15 settlement officer's urging . Petitioner was hardly 16 cowed into silence and submission by any hostility 17 from the Office of Appeals ; rather, she becam e 18 resentful and instead . deliberately prosecuted a "paper 19 war," to use her phrase . She . intentionally decide d 20 not to submit the tax returns and financia l 21 information that could have resulted in a collection 22 alternative being considered (and that, in any event, 23 would have formed a record against which the Appeals 24 Officer's conduct could be reviewed for an abuse o f 25 discretion) . The negative outcome Petitioner obtained Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 25 2 4 from the CDP hearing was the result of her ow n conduct, not the settlement officer's . An appropriate order will be issue d sustaining the IRS's determination to proceed with a levy to collect Petitioner's tax liabilities for 199 7 through 2001 . This concludes the Court's oral Findings o f Fact and opinion in this case . (Whereupon, at 3 :50 p .m ., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888