- 6 - letter relate to the 2000 offer or the 2003 offer. Be that as it may, it is clear that from August 2003 the focus of the parties was on the 2003 offer.4 Mr. Barry’s August 6 letter to petitioner also advised petitioner that Mr. Barry intended to file a Notice of Federal Tax Lien unless petitioner appealed his decision to do so in the manner explained in the letter. Mr. Barry’s decision to file a Notice of Federal Tax Lien was made, at least in part, in order to establish the priority of the Government’s interest in real estate owned by petitioner. See sec. 6323. Petitioner’s response to Mr. Barry’s August 6 letter came in a letter dated September 12, 2003. Petitioner provided some of the additional information but once again refused to provide information regarding his wife’s 2002 income.5 4 In a memorandum dated Sept. 25, 2003, Mr. Barry notes that the 2000 offer was “returned”. Otherwise the ultimate disposition of the 2000 offer remains as much a mystery as its status from July 2000 through June 2003. 5 The dispute between Mr. Barry and petitioner on this point is somewhat puzzling inasmuch as the information sought was apparent from a copy of the 2002 joint Federal income tax return filed by petitioner and his wife. The return shows adjusted gross income of $149,421. It appears that the 2002 joint return was reviewed by Mr. Barry, and petitioner must have been aware that Mr. Barry had access to that return. It should also be noted that, under the circumstances, Mr. Barry’s request for petitioner’s wife’s income was consistent with sec. 301.7122-1(c)(2)(ii)(A), Proced. & Admin. Regs.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007