Unprepared TP Goes To Court

[Quixote]

Assessment of an income tax is "normally" not made until after a notice of deficiency has been sent to the taxpayer ...

Wrong. The overwhelming majority of assessments do not involve a NOD. They are made based on the taxpayer's self assessment on his return.

People always get a CP letter prior to a NoD which according to you would not be normal. Because an assessment takes place after a NoD and after CP notices.

CP is an abreviation for "computer paragraph". It refers to computer generated form letters. There are hundreds of CPs, dealing with every subject on which IRS has to communicate, internally and externally. The statement that "[p]eople always get a CP letter prior to a NoD ...", even if it were true, would not be relevant to this discussion.

You get a CP 22, I think, stating they don't agree with your return or that they have changed your account based on third party information. This is one of the very first letters you get long before a NoD.

If a taxpayer's account is changed based on third party information, then either a NOD was mailed and the taxpayer did not file a Tax Court petition or the taxpayer agreed in writing to the assessment. So if a NOD is mailed, a CP 22 will be mailed out only after the NOD, never before.

[ASITStands]

Now I'm really confused. People always get a CP letter prior to a NoD which according to you would not be normal. Because an assessment takes place after a NoD and after CP notices.

Someone getting a CP Notice PRIOR to an NoD is not going to get an NoD, because they're being assessed a frivolous penalty, which does not require deficiency procedures. I've seen that many times, especially, in the case of 'Cracking the Code' or other 'zero' returns.

Assessment does not take place AFTER a CP Notice but BEFORE. It's a "collection" notice, and you can only "collect" what's been assessed. Assessment of a liability takes place first.

So, the first thing to consider when you find someone receiving a CP Notice prior to an NoD, would be to ask if it's the result of filing something not recognized as a return.

It's simply not true that every time someone gets a CP Notice it's PRIOR to an NoD. I've seen case after case after case in which a notice of deficiency was received, and acted upon or not, then later, CP Notices were sent to "collect" the amount assessed AFTER the NoD.

btw, I appreciate your explanation but again I fail to see where any of that is written in the law. I can understand why the "movement" fails to understand it. Reading the plain language of the law it simply says you get a CDP hearing if you request one for the liability prior to a NoD. You may also get one if you challenge the appropriateness of the collection action, and you admit the receipt of a CP letter is a collection action. It seems to me the designation alone proves its a collection action, doesn't CP stand for "Collection Process". You get a CP 22, I think, stating they don't agree with your return or that they have changed your account based on third party information. This is one of the very first letters you get long before a NoD.

You can receive a CDP hearing by request. Yes. But the only instances in which it would occur PRIOR to an NoD would be in the cases mentioned by Dan and myself, which go to penalty assessments and not tax assessments [or deficiency procedures in regard to a return].

And, frankly, in those cases, you will not receive a notice of deficiency. That's why it seems to be PRIOR to an NoD, because an NoD will not be issued. It's a contradiction in terms.

To understand "where" it says that in the Law, you have to read more than IRC 6330(c). However, it's in the word "otherwise," as Dan explained earlier, and in relation to deficiency procedures for tax assessments and no deficiency procedures in relation to penalties.

CP = Computer Paragraph - according to that mysterious ADP Manual discussed elsewhere

It does not stand for "Collection Process" or "Collection Procedure." But CDP does stand for "Collection Due Process," and as stated before, collection cannot occur before assessment.

It's a contradiction in terms to say, "You get a 'collection' hearing prior to an assessment being made as a result of a notice of deficiency." That simply cannot happen. However, again, it could happen if it were a penalty assessed without deficiency procedures.

Those would be the result of filing some sort of 'unprocessable' return. Things like a 'zero' return or a 'Cracking the Code' return qualify as 'unprocessable,' because there's not enough information to make a correct determination of liability [sounds like IRC 6702].

And, in those cases, there would never be an NoD but collection notices instead.

BEFORE assessment, the following CP Notices can be received:

CP-515, 1st Notice - Return Deficiency
CP-518, 4th Notice - Return Deficiency
Letter 1862 or Letter 2566, Proposed Assessment - 30-Day Letter
Notice of Deficiency - 90-Day Letter

AFTER assessment, the following CP Notices can be received:

CP-21A or 22E, Adjustment Notice - We Changed Your Account
CP-21A or 22E is also the notice and demand [IRC 6303] or notice of assessment [IRC 6213(c)]
CP-501, 1st Notice - Balance Due
CP-503, 3rd Notice - Balance Due
CP-504, 4th Notice - Balance Due

In the case of penalty assessments, the following can be received [and no NoD received]:

CP-14, 1st Notice - Balance Due w/no Math Error
CP-15, Civil (Frivolous) Penalty - Notice of Penalty Charge

After which the 500 Series starts.

Hope this helps explain some of it. You have to watch the progression of notices carefully.

[ASITStands]

Wrong. The overwhelming majority of assessments do not involve a NOD. They are made based on the taxpayer's self assessment on his return.

'Quixote' is correct, by saying this, but I'm talking about tax deniers or non-filers.

The majority of the notice(s) of deficiency seen in the tax movement are the result of either not filing a return initially, and the Service conducting deficiency procedures, or after penalty assessment and rejection of a frivolous return, such as a 'zero' return or 'Cracking the Code' return, and the Service conducting deficiency procedures prior to assessment.

[SteveSy]

AFTER assessment, the following CP Notices can be received:

CP-21A or 22E, Adjustment Notice - We Changed Your Account
CP-21A or 22E is also the notice and demand [IRC 6303] or notice of assessment [IRC 6213(c)]
CP-501, 1st Notice - Balance Due
CP-503, 3rd Notice - Balance Due
CP-504, 4th Notice - Balance Due

Thanks, but I know for a fact your information isn't correct. I know for a fact, because I've personally seen it with a friend, that you can receive a CP 21A, I guess, "we changed your account" without an assessment being completed. The reason I know because I've personally seen an FOIA request for all assessment which returned a response with none on file after the "we changed your account' was received. In fact no assessment was made even after several CP 500 notices. This is the same person who ended up having a lien after the NoD, who had the erroneous 1099 filed stating he made income he never received. He repeatedly requested a hearing but was repeatedly ignored all the way through.

[ASITStands]

AFTER assessment, the following CP Notices can be received:

CP-21A or 22E, Adjustment Notice - We Changed Your Account
CP-21A or 22E is also the notice and demand [IRC 6303] or notice of assessment [IRC 6213(c)]
CP-501, 1st Notice - Balance Due
CP-503, 3rd Notice - Balance Due
CP-504, 4th Notice - Balance Due

Thanks, but I know for a fact your information isn't correct. I know for a fact, because I've personally seen it with a friend, that you can receive a CP 21A, I guess, "we changed your account" without an assessment being completed. The reason I know because I've personally seen an FOIA request for all assessment which returned a response with none on file after the "we changed your account' was received. In fact no assessment was made even after several CP 500 notices. This is the same person who ended up having a lien after the NoD, who had the erroneous 1099 filed stating he made income he never received. He repeatedly requested a hearing but was repeatedly ignored all the way through.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but the answer's right in your comment. It's a 'notice and demand' after assessment of a liability. Why would they have "changed your account" if they had not assessed something, at the very least a penalty? Something had to have been assessed.

Just because the response to a FOIA request said there were no assessments does not mean an assessment was not made. A lot depends on how the request was made. If it asked for some document like Form 23C or 17-A, it would likely receive the negative response.

But I assure you if you had analyzed the master file, it would have shown a penalty or interest assessment. It may not have shown an additional assessment of tax, but something changed on the account to create a liability, or the notice would not have been sent.

The erroneous 1099 would have shown up as income, and if it had not been claimed on the return, deficiency procedures would have eventually occurred. A penalty assessment may have occurred first, which could explain the series of CP Notices.

But I assure you if the master file could be reviewed today, or an Account Transcript, it would show an additional tax assessed after an examination, and it would show penalty and interest assessments. A collection due process hearing was offered, and an examination hearing could have been requested, which might have straightened out the problem.

I've worked with numerous taxpayers who've received consideration in hearings.

And, by the way, I do not and have not worked for the IRS.

[Nikki]

AFTER assessment, the following CP Notices can be received:

CP-21A or 22E, Adjustment Notice - We Changed Your Account
CP-21A or 22E is also the notice and demand [IRC 6303] or notice of assessment [IRC 6213(c)]
CP-501, 1st Notice - Balance Due
CP-503, 3rd Notice - Balance Due
CP-504, 4th Notice - Balance Due

Thanks, but I know for a fact your information isn't correct. I know for a fact, because I've personally seen it with a friend, that you can receive a CP 21A, I guess, "we changed your account" without an assessment being completed. The reason I know because I've personally seen an FOIA request for all assessment which returned a response with none on file after the "we changed your account' was received. In fact no assessment was made even after several CP 500 notices. This is the same person who ended up having a lien after the NoD, who had the erroneous 1099 filed stating he made income he never received. He repeatedly requested a hearing but was repeatedly ignored all the way through.

Did he timely file a tax court petition to contest the Commissoner's action?

If not, then he didn't follow the simple, clear rules and his story doesn't count.

[LPC]

Now I'm really confused.

God, you f***ing heartless bastards. Now see what you've done. You've **CONFUSED* him!

You've gone and imposed your "reality" on him, and quoted "law" to him, and now you've CONFUSED him!

Have you no pity? Have you no shame?

F****ing bastards.

[LPC]

Thanks, but I know for a fact your information isn't correct. I know for a fact, because I've personally seen it with a friend,

Oh, thank God, I was so worried.

I was afraid that Sybil might have taken some of the harsh statements here to heart, but fortunately he's made of sterner stuff.

[Imalawman]

Thanks, but I know for a fact your information isn't correct. I know for a fact, because I've personally seen it with a friend,

Oh, thank God, I was so worried.

I was afraid that Sybil might have taken some of the harsh statements here to heart, but fortunately he's made of sterner stuff.

You crack me up LPC. It is amazing how much Steve relies on anecdotal evidence to support his claims...

[SteveSy]

Thanks, but I know for a fact your information isn't correct. I know for a fact, because I've personally seen it with a friend,

Oh, thank God, I was so worried.

I was afraid that Sybil might have taken some of the harsh statements here to heart, but fortunately he's made of sterner stuff.

You crack me up LPC. It is amazing how much Steve relies on anecdotal evidence to support his claims...

How else would you suggest I support my claim. It's his anonymous word against mine that it happened that way. Just what other "anecdotal evidence" are you referring to that I've used to prove a point. I always post something, whether it's a quote from a founder, a case or the law itself. Are you referring to the comment I made about the court accepting the fact that the IRS record is enough to satisfy the whether or not a NoD was issued?

I don't think I need to post one, there's so many and I'm sure the regulars on here are aware of this, not to mention I believe we've have discussions concerning it with cases posted. I'll post it anyway....

United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984); United
States v. Ahrens,530 F.2d 781, 785 (8th Cir. 1976); Cataldo v.
Commissioner, 60 T.C. 522, 524 (1973), affd. per curiam 499 F.2d
550 (2d Cir. 1974). Moreover, “There is a strong presumption in
the law that a properly addressed letter will be delivered, or
offered for delivery, to the addressee.” Zenco Engg. Corp. v.
Commissioner, 75 T.C. 318, 323 (1980), affd. without published
opinion 673 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir. 1981); see also Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 611 (holding that “In the absence of clear
evidence to the contrary, the presumptions of official regularity
and of delivery justify the conclusion that the statutory notice
was sent and that attempts to deliver were made in the manner
contended by respondent.”). The effect of proper mailing is to
place the risk of nondelivery on the taxpayer. Trimble v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-419; Barrash v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1987-592, affd. 862 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1988).

All the IRS has to do is say they sent it....it's then impossible for the taxpayer to prove he never received it. Proving a negative is a hard thing to do.

[The Operative]

How else would you suggest I support my claim. It's his anonymous word against mine that it happened that way. Just what other "anecdotal evidence" are you referring to that I've used to prove a point. I always post something, whether it's a quote from a founder, a case or the law itself. Are you referring to the comment I made about the court accepting the fact that the IRS record is enough to satisfy the whether or not a NoD was issued?

I don't think I need to post one, there's so many and I'm sure the regulars on here are aware of this, not to mention I believe we've have discussions concerning it with cases posted. I'll post it anyway....

United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984); United
States v. Ahrens,530 F.2d 781, 785 (8th Cir. 1976); Cataldo v.
Commissioner, 60 T.C. 522, 524 (1973), affd. per curiam 499 F.2d
550 (2d Cir. 1974). Moreover, “There is a strong presumption in
the law that a properly addressed letter will be delivered, or
offered for delivery, to the addressee.” Zenco Engg. Corp. v.
Commissioner, 75 T.C. 318, 323 (1980), affd. without published
opinion 673 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir. 1981); see also Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 611 (holding that “In the absence of clear
evidence to the contrary, the presumptions of official regularity
and of delivery justify the conclusion that the statutory notice
was sent and that attempts to deliver were made in the manner
contended by respondent.”). The effect of proper mailing is to
place the risk of nondelivery on the taxpayer. Trimble v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-419; Barrash v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1987-592, affd. 862 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1988).

All the IRS has to do is say they sent it....it's then impossible for the taxpayer to prove he never received it. Proving a negative is a hard thing to do.

Current law states that NODs are sent certified or registered mail. Since the postal service keeps records of certified and registered mail deliveries, a person could request that information. A certified mail receipt showing it was delivered to the wrong address or with someone else's signature would be clear evidence that indicates a person did not receive the notice.

[ASITStands]

'SteveSy:'

Without reviewing the details of the cases you cite, they all appear to deal with the question of whether a properly mailed item is adjudged to have been delivered.

Usually, the use of certified mail and the U.S. Postal Service is sufficient to prove mailing.

I was involved in a case in which a collection due process hearing was appealed to tax court. The taxpayer had moved from one State to another and had raised an objection based on non-receipt of the statutory notice of deficiency during the appeals hearing.

The Appeals Officer verified through transcripts the notice of deficiency had been sent but failed to accept the taxpayer's assertion it had not been received. Through an analysis of the master file, the taxpayer had shown the notice had been marked "undelivered."

Since the taxpayer was formerly a non-filer, the Commissioner had a right to use the "Last Known Address" and any proof of mailing need not be determined in taxpayer's favor.

During pendancy of the case in tax court, the taxpayer was able to show the Commissioner had mailed a notice to the proper "new" address one month prior and one month after the date of the notice of deficiency, and tax court dismissed the case in taxpayer's favor.

It was through the use of "evidence" the taxpayer was able to show non-receipt, and that satisfied the exception at IRC 6330(c)(2)(B). The previous assessments made by deficiency procedures were abated, and the Commissioner proceeded to issue a new notice.

However, since a return had recently been filed, the taxpayer was able to establish the correct amount of deficiency, or the correct amount of liability, and the only issue for consideration was the imposition of penalty and how payment was to be made.

It turned out favorably to the taxpayer. I always recommend cooperation.

'Nikki' suggested your friend could have filed a timely petition in tax court and potentially resolved the issue. That's just what happened in the case I've described.

And, even now, there's the opportunity for Audit Reconsideration. See IRM 4.13.1.

[Quixote]

How else would you suggest I support my claim. It's his anonymous word against mine that it happened that way. Just what other "anecdotal evidence" are you referring to that I've used to prove a point. I always post something, whether it's a quote from a founder, a case or the law itself. Are you referring to the comment I made about the court accepting the fact that the IRS record is enough to satisfy the whether or not a NoD was issued?

I could be wrong, but I would guess that Dan was referring to your comment that appears in the quote box just above his comment. To refresh your memory, you had rejected Asitstand's assertion that demands for payment of assessed tax are mailed only after assessment. You based that rejection on your having seen a "FOIA request for all assessment" to which the IRS had responded by saying none were on file. The FOIA response most likely resulted from the IRS Disclosure Office interpreting the FOIA request differently from you. I would be willing to bet that unless a FOIA request specifically requests copies of the relevant RACS 006s the Disclosure Office is not going to guess they were wanted.

[ASITStands]

The FOIA response most likely resulted from the IRS Disclosure Office interpreting the FOIA request differently from you. I would be willing to bet that unless a FOIA request specifically requests copies of the relevant RACS 006s the Disclosure Office is not going to guess they were wanted.

Absolutely!

I have requested the "Summary Record of Assessment(s)," Form 23C, RACS Report 06, Form 4340, etc. I have requested Form(s) 2644, 2849, 3552, 17-A, 6335, 1331, 5546, 3177, 813, 813A, 872, 872A, 5344, 5351, 5403, and "any other documents" pertaining to assessment.

I have even requested the "Non-Master File and Comments Field."

I can tell you from experience that unless you specifically request documents by name and number, or at the very least the System of Records, you will not receive the answer you seek. You will get some sort of "no records of assessment appear" in the system.

I didn't need to share all this. I'm just trying to show that our perception is not always right. Unless you've really dug into the details and examined all the evidence and law, you'll arrive at the wrong conclusion 90% of the time, and that's what's wrong with the tax movement.

Of course, you could also argue, "They're just plain eat up with it!"

[SteveSy]

The FOIA response most likely resulted from the IRS Disclosure Office interpreting the FOIA request differently from you. I would be willing to bet that unless a FOIA request specifically requests copies of the relevant RACS 006s the Disclosure Office is not going to guess they were wanted.

Absolutely!

I have requested the "Summary Record of Assessment(s)," Form 23C, RACS Report 06, Form 4340, etc. I have requested Form(s) 2644, 2849, 3552, 17-A, 6335, 1331, 5546, 3177, 813, 813A, 872, 872A, 5344, 5351, 5403, and "any other documents" pertaining to assessment.

I have even requested the "Non-Master File and Comments Field."

I can tell you from experience that unless you specifically request documents by name and number, or at the very least the System of Records, you will not receive the answer you seek. You will get some sort of "no records of assessment appear" in the system.

I didn't need to share all this. I'm just trying to show that our perception is not always right. Unless you've really dug into the details and examined all the evidence and law, you'll arrive at the wrong conclusion 90% of the time, and that's what's wrong with the tax movement.

Of course, you could also argue, "They're just plain eat up with it!"

The RACS will only inform you of a group assessment for all taxpayers on a given date. There is no way to determine whether an individual assessment was done on a particular account using the RACS alone. Form 23C is no longer used, so its a waste of time asking for it. But anyway I suppose if only he had asked for it while holding his tongue on the right side of his mouth instead of the left he would have received confirmation an assessment had been completed. You like the IRS and the courts like to play whack-a-mole, to where its impossible to corner them in to admitting they didn't do something right. Something always supports them. Its just like the NoD, how the hell can someone prove they didn't get an NoD if all the IRS has to do is simply say they sent it and its up to you to prove they didn't, its a frigging moronic injustice.

Here is an example of what he requested. He's not a TP btw. It came up in a conversation that he was getting screwed by the IRS and he was trying to clear the matter up but the all the IRS would do is send him another form stating he owed money totally ignoring every request he made. Since I research on that very subject I provided him with an example FOIA so that he could try and resolve it and submit a correction. This is the only thing I gave him, I did not send him to TP sites, he never claimed any TP arguments only that the 1099 had an invalid amount. All this was to accomplish was to see if the IRS had corrected his account or if they were moving forward with collections such as the lawfully required assessment prior to placing a levy or lien.

1. A copy of the valid, procedurally proper, executed Form 23C (manual) Assessment Certificate and supporting documentation for the principal for each class of tax assessed as required by 26 USC §6203, and 26 C.FR. §301.6203-1 which pertain to the Requester.

2. A copy of documents and information of all exculpatory evidence supporting the record of assessment and supporting documentation for the interest for each class of tax assessed as required by 26 U.S.C. §6203, and 26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1 which pertain to the Requester.

3. A copy of documents and information of all exculpatory evidence supporting the record of assessment and supporting documentation for the penalty for each class of tax assessed as required by 26 U.S.C. §6203, and 26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1 which pertain to the Requester.

4. A copy of IRS Form 17 or 17A “Notice of Assessment and Demand”.

5. A copy of IRS Form 21 “Second Notice of Assessment and Demand”.

6. A copy of IRS Form 668(Y)(c), or 668W(c) or 668(A)(c) executed under penalty of perjury.

7. A certified copy of any RACS 006 supporting the record of assessment which pertain to the Requester.

8. A copy of IRS Form 2644 “Recommendation for Jeopardy or Termination Assessment” (or its successor) issued against the Requester clearly listing the Document Locater Number (DLN) and Form 23C Certificate of Assessment data.

9. A copy of IRS Form 2859 “Request for Quick or Prompt Assessment” (or its successor).

10. A copy of IRS Form 3198 regarding requester prepared by the agent.

11. A copy of the IRS Form 3210 “Document Transmittal” (or its successor) in conjunction with "Fax Quick Assessment" procedure sent to the Accounting Branch in the Computer Services and Accounting Division.

12. A copy of the Master File (MF) assessment provided to the ESP by the service center.

13. A copy of the Non-Master File (NMF) assessment provided to the ESP by the service center.

14. If a Master File assessment was provided, then a copy of IRS Form 3552 “Prompt Assessment Billing Assembly” (or its successor form), or TY-26 Form 17-A Statement of Tax Due (or its successor).

15. A copy of IRS Form 4340 “Certificates of Assessments and Payments”.

16. A copy of IRS Form 4549 or 4549A “Income Tax Examination Changes” (or its successor) containing the portion of the Tax Computation and copy of narrative sent to the service center Accounting Branch, Accounting and Control System, Journal and Ledger Unit.

17. If a Non-master file assessment was provided, then a copy of Form 6335 “Statement of Tax Due The Internal Revenue Service” (or its successor).

18. A copy of IRS Form 8166 “Revenue Accounting Control System Input Reconciliation Sheet”.

19. A copy of any and all lawful Jeopardy Assessments.

20. A copy of any and all lawful Termination Assessments.

21. A copy of any and all lawful Quick Assessments.

22. A copy of any and all lawful Prompt Assessments.

23. A copy of any and all lawful deficiency assessments.

24. A copy of any and all lawful, procedurally proper assessments with supporting documents for each non-tax penalty items, such things as frivolous filing, etc.

25. A copy of any and all lawful, procedurally proper assessments with supporting documents for each non-tax penalty interest.

They simply responded "A search of our computer systems revealed, to date, there has been no assessments to the tax year XXXX. Therefore we would have none of the forms you requested in our files for the year requested. Here's you appeal rights, blah blah.

I'm not saying the IRS does everyone this way, in fact I've seen where they were rather polite and fixed issues within a few months. If you happen to be unlucky enough to have them run you over, you're pretty much toast you're going to pay, with interest and penalties, whether you owe it or not. With all of the silly extremely weak presumption of validity the courts have granted the IRS you don't have a chance.

[Lasagna]

You like the IRS and the courts like to play whack-a-mole, to where its impossible to corner them in to admitting they didn't do something right. Something always supports them. Its just like the NoD, how the hell can someone prove they didn't get an NoD if all the IRS has to do is simply say they sent it and its up to you to prove they didn't, its a frigging moronic injustice.

You seem to equate both (1) certain unfortunate realities of life (like you cannot be ablsolutely certain that mail has reached the correct person) and (2) minor procedural errors on the part of the I.R.S. with justification for not paying taxes. Even assuming some of the things you've complained about on this thread happened - e.g., the I.R.S. claimed that a taxpayer received an NoD when they didn't - you still aren't asking the correct questions. The primary question is not whether the tax protester whose case started this thread had the right to bring up tax protester arguments at this or that point during the course of his fight against the I.R.S., or whether the I.R.S. can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he received, read and understood his NoD. The question is whether or not he failed to pay the taxes he owed.

[SteveSy]

You like the IRS and the courts like to play whack-a-mole, to where its impossible to corner them in to admitting they didn't do something right. Something always supports them. Its just like the NoD, how the hell can someone prove they didn't get an NoD if all the IRS has to do is simply say they sent it and its up to you to prove they didn't, its a frigging moronic injustice.

You seem to equate both (1) certain unfortunate realities of life (like you cannot be ablsolutely certain that mail has reached the correct person) and (2) minor procedural errors on the part of the I.R.S. with justification for not paying taxes.

I never made such a claim...please do not construct stawmen.

Even assuming some of the things you've complained about on this thread happened - e.g., the I.R.S. claimed that a taxpayer received an NoD when they didn't - you still aren't asking the correct questions. The primary question is not whether the tax protester whose case started this thread had the right to bring up tax protester arguments at this or that point during the course of his fight against the I.R.S., or whether the I.R.S. can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he received, read and understood his NoD. The question is whether or not he failed to pay the taxes he owed.

lol....

First off, I don't see where the person identified at the start of this thread was a TP. There is nothing in the opinion stating he made TP style arguments claiming he wasn't liable for income taxes in general. It is a question whether or not he received a NoD, if he hadn't or their was a challenge to the collection action by law he was to receive a CDP hearing. Perhaps the issue would have been resolved prior to the IRS seizing his property.

Your reasoning is akin to saying, "The primary question is not whether the police conducted a lawful investigation, whether or not they had a legal search warrant, whether or not they entrapped him, if they mishandled, destroyed, planted or compromised evidence, failed to read him his Miranda rights, its whether or not he committed fraud."

[Quixote]

What possible use would any of that been? None whatsoever. His problem was a bad 1099. He chose not to take advantage of the two chances he had to dispute it and put the burden on the IRS to prove the 1099 was right, so IRS assessed the tax after the 90 day letter defaulted. Once that occurred, all he could do is ask for an audit reconsideration. But the burden of proof was then on him to prove the 1099 was wrong.

[Quixote]

It is a question whether or not he received a NoD, if he hadn't or their was a challenge to the collection action by law he was to receive a CDP hearing.

No, there is no requirement that the taxpayer receive the NOD. The NOD is valid if the taxpayer received it or the IRS mailed it to the last known address. In the case, the IRS had mailed it to the proper address, so it was irrelevant if it had been received or not. And the taxpayer never suggested any alternatives to enforced collection action. So no CDP hearing for him.

[SteveSy]

What possible use would any of that been? None whatsoever.

It was relevant if he was being assessed for an invalid amount or if they were placing a lien on him.

His problem was a bad 1099. He chose not to take advantage of the two chances he had to dispute it and put the burden on the IRS to prove the 1099 was right, so IRS assessed the tax after the 90 day letter defaulted. Once that occurred, all he could do is ask for an audit reconsideration. But the burden of proof was then on him to prove the 1099 was wrong.

I agree he should have done something after receiving a notice that they were getting ready to place a lien on him and petitioned tax court. However, how can you prove you didn't make income stated on a 1099 if the company issuing the 1099 is no longer available? That's like proving you didn't receive a NoD in the mail. I'll tell you what, I sent you a letter stating you owe me money, all I have to have is a copy of it in my files to prove I sent it. Now, Its up to you to prove you never received it and if you can't you have no right to dispute the liability in a hearing. Good luck, trying to prove the impossible.