- 8 -
in petitioner’s signature on the refund check and the replacement
check’s endorsement signature.
There is no evidence that the section 6330 officer or the
TAS investigation adequately considered the issue of whether
petitioner cashed the replacement check aside from comparing the
simple and nondistinctive endorsement signatures from the checks.
Petitioner testified that she relocated prior to the issuance of
the replacement check and that the Mineola Community Bank would
not have cashed a U.S. Treasury check for her because she does
not have any type of relationship with that bank. The section
6330 officer failed to investigate or consider these relevant
matters.3
At trial, petitioner’s tax preparer, Idayari Pena (Ms.
Pena), testified that she had inquired about the practices of the
Mineola Community Bank, and ascertained that the bank policy is
that its personnel will not cash any check, including a U.S.
Treasury check, for anyone who does not have an account there.
She also learned that bank records indicate that petitioner never
had an account or relationship with that bank. We found Ms.
Pena’s testimony to be reasonable and uncontradicted.
3 When asked at trial whether he had made a determination
that petitioner signed and cashed both the refund check and the
replacement check, the sec. 6330 officer testified: “Yes, the
taxpayer advocate office had made a ruling on it. They’re the
ones that had sent me copies of this and I showed them to the
petitioner. To me, they looked to be the same signature”.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011