BEV FREEMAN, )
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Docket No. _________
)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )
)
Respondent. )
RESPONDENT, in answer to the Petition as amended
filed in the above-entitled case, admits, denies and alleges as set forth
below. In the Amendment to Petition, Petitioner did not use sequentially
numbered paragraphs to correspond with her original Petition (i.e., Petitioner's
original Petition uses paragraph numbers 1 through 17, with paragraph number 17
being used twice, and Petitioner's Amendment to Petition uses paragraph numbers
1 through 16), thus in answering the Petition as Amended, Respondent uses
headers to indicate the document to which Respondent is responding with the
corresponding paragraph numbers as used by Petitioner in her original Petition
and her Amendment to Petition.
1. As to the first sentence of paragraph 1,
denies, but alleges that Petitioner filed a timely request for a collection due
process hearing for tax year 1993 from the proposed levy collection action as
set forth in the Final Notice -- Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Notice of a
Right to a Hearing, LT 11, dated October 23, 2006. As to the second sentence of
paragraph 1, admits, but alleges that a copy of the Notice of Determination
Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (hereinafter
"the Notice of Determination") was not attached to the Petition as
Amended that was served on Respondent and alleges further that attached hereto
as Exhibit 1 is a complete copy of the retained copy of the Notice of
Determination dated May 9, 2007. As to the third sentence of paragraph 1, denies,
but alleges that Petitioner does not agree with Respondent's determination as
set forth in the Notice of Determination. As to the fourth sentence, denies for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations, if any.
2. Denies the factual allegations, if any, for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent Petitioner raises
allegations calling for legal conclusions.
3. Denies the factual allegations, if any, for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent Petitioner raises
allegations calling for legal conclusions.
4. Denies the factual allegations, if any, for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent Petitioner raises
allegations calling for legal conclusions.
5. As to the first sentence of paragraph 5,
denies. As to the second sentence of paragraph 5, denies the factual
allegations, if any, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the
extent Petitioner raises allegations calling for legal conclusions.
6. Denies the factual allegations, if any, for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent Petitioner raises
allegations calling for legal conclusions.
7. A. and B., inclusive. Denies the factual
allegations, if any, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the
extent Petitioner raises allegations calling for legal conclusions.
8. Admits that Petitioner disagrees with
Respondent's determination as set forth in the Notice of Determination, but
denies any other allegations made by Petitioner for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, if
any.
9. Denies the factual allegations, if any, for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent Petitioner raises
allegations calling for legal conclusions.
10. As to the first sentence of paragraph 10,
denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested. As to the second
sentence of paragraph 10, denies the factual allegations, if any, for lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent Petitioner raises
allegations calling for legal conclusions.
11. As to the first sentence of paragraph 11,
denies, but alleges that Petitioner filed a timely request for a collection due
process hearing for tax year 1993 from the proposed levy collection action as
set forth in the Final Notice -- Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Notice of a
Right to a Hearing, LT 11, dated October 23, 2006. As to the second sentence of
paragraph 11, denies, and, to the extent Petitioner is raising allegations
calling for legal conclusions, neither admits nor denies. As to the third
sentence of paragraph 11, denies. As to the fourth and fifth sentences of
paragraph 11, denies for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations, if any.
12. Denies.
13. As to the first sentence of paragraph 13,
denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested. As to the second
and third sentences of paragraph 13, denies the factual allegations, if any,
for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent
Petitioner raises allegations calling for legal conclusions.
14. Denies the factual allegations, if any, for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent Petitioner raises
allegations calling for legal conclusions.
15. Denies the factual allegations, if any, for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent Petitioner raises
allegations calling for legal conclusions.
16. Denies the factual allegations, if any, for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent Petitioner raises
allegations calling for legal conclusions.
17. As to the first paragraph 17, denies the
factual allegations, if any, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations; and neither admits nor denies
to the extent Petitioner raises allegations calling for legal conclusions.
17. As to the first sentence in the second
paragraph 17, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested. As to
the remaining sentences of the second paragraph 17, denies the factual
allegations, if any, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the
extent Petitioner raises allegations calling for legal conclusions.
1. As to the first sentence of paragraph 1,
denies, but alleges that Petitioner filed a timely request for a collection due
process hearing for tax year 1993 from the proposed levy collection action as
set forth in the Final Notice -- Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Notice of a
Right to a Hearing, LT 11, dated October 23, 2006. As to the second sentence of
paragraph 1, denies, but alleges that during the collection due process proceedings,
Petitioner notified Respondent of her wish to make an audio recording of the
collection due process hearing.
2. As to the first sentence of paragraph 2,
denies, but alleges that Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner dated February
12, 2007, acknowledging receipt of Petitioner's case on January 18, 2007, for
consideration in Respondent's Memphis Campus Appeals Office. As to the second
sentence of paragraph 2, denies for lack of knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that "Publication 4165
was not enclosed with the letter," but alleges that Petitioner's case was
transferred to Settlement Officer Nicole D. Matthews as indicated by the letter
sent to Petitioner on February 26, 2007.
3. Denies for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, if any.
4. Denies, but alleges that Petitioner's case
was transferred to Settlement Officer Nicole D. Matthews as indicated by
Respondent's letter sent to Petitioner on February 26, 2007, and that
Settlement Officer Matthews proposed in that letter a telephonic conference
call for March 28, 2007, to discuss Petitioner's reasons for disagreeing with
the collection action and/or to discuss alternatives to collection action.
Further alleges that Respondent's letter to Petitioner dated February 26, 2007,
speaks for itself.
5. Denies, but alleges that Respondent received from Petitioner a letter dated March 5, 2007, a copy of which is attached to the Amendment to Petition as Exhibit B.
6. Denies, but alleges that Respondent received
from Petitioner a letter dated March 11, 2007, a copy of which is attached to
the Amendment to Petition as Exhibit C.
7. As to the first sentence of paragraph 7,
admits, but alleges that Petitioner's case was transferred from Respondent's
Memphis Campus Appeals Office to Atlanta Appeals Office pursuant to
Petitioner's request where it was assigned to Settlement Officer L.M. Allen,
and further alleges that Settlement Officer L.M. Allen sent a letter to
Petitioner dated April 2, 2007. As to the remaining allegations in paragraph 7,
denies for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations if any, and alleges that Respondent's letter dated
April 2, 2007, speaks for itself.
8. Denies, but alleges that Respondent received
from Petitioner a letter dated April 6, 2007, a copy of which is attached to
the Amendment to Petition as Exhibit D.
9. Denies for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, if any, but
alleges that the Notice of Determination was mailed to Petitioner and that the
Notice of Determination speaks for itself.
10. Denies, but alleges that the Notice of
Determination speaks for itself.
11. Denies the factual allegations, if any, for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent Petitioner raises
allegations calling for legal conclusions.
12. Denies for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, if any, but
alleges that Respondent received from Petitioner letters dated March 5, 2007,
March 11, 2007, and April 6, 2007, copies of which are attached to the
Amendment to Petition as Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and Exhibit D, respectively.
13. Denies for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, if any.
14. As to the first sentence of paragraph 14,
denies for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations, if any, but alleges that Petitioner timely filed
a petition, as amended, from the Notice of Determination. As to the remaining
allegations in paragraph 14, denies the factual allegations, if any, for lack
of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations; and neither admits nor denies to the extent Petitioner raises
allegations calling for legal conclusions.
15. Denies.
16. Denies and further alleges that Petitioner
is not entitled to the relief requested.
17. Denies generally each and every allegation
of the Petition as Amended not herein specifically admitted, qualified or
denied.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the relief sought
in the Petition as Amended be denied and that Respondent's determination, as
set forth in the Notice of Determination, be in all respects approved.
DONALD L. KORB
Chief Counsel
Internal Revenue
Service
Date: July 26, 2007 By:___(signature)_____________
PAMELA L. MABLE
Senior Attorney
(Small
Business/Self-Employed)
Tax Court Bar No.
MP0437
401
Stop 1000-D
Telephone: (404)
338-7971
OF COUNSEL:
THOMAS R. THOMAS
Division Counsel
(Small Business/Self-Employed)
ELLEN T. FRIBERG
Area Counsel
(Small Business/Self-Employed:Area 3)
MONICA J. MILLER
Associate Area Counsel
(Small Business/Self-Employed)
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing
ANSWER TO PETITION AS AMENDED was served on petitioner by mailing the same on July
26, 2007 in a postage paid wrapper addressed as follows:
Beverly Freeman
Dahlonega, Georgia
30533
Date: July 26, 2007 ____(signature)____________
PAMELA L. MABLE
Senior Attorney (
(Small
Business/Self-Employed)
Tax Court Bar No.
MP0437