- 6 -
whether an erroneous Form 1099-C had been issued because the debt
discharged was nonrecourse (the erroneous Form 1099-C issue).
Mr. Tkacik requested information to support this argument as well
as reiterated respondent’s request for documentation regarding
the insolvency issue. Some documentation was forwarded to Mr.
Tkacik on March 31, 1999. Mr. Tkacik found the documentation
failed to prove petitioner’s insolvency and did not address the
erroneous Form 1099-C issue. Additional documentation was
received by Mr. Tkacik on April 13, 1999. Mr. Tkacik found that
this additional documentation again failed to substantiate the
insolvency claim and failed to address the erroneous Form 1099-C
issue.
Finally, in a conference call conducted on April 16, 1999,
Mr. Battagline set forth arguments of law and facts sufficient to
set the basis for determining that the Form 1099-C was erroneous.
On April 22, 1999, Mr. Battagline filed a motion for leave to
amend petition and motion for continuance of trial, which the
Court granted.
Correspondence resumed between the parties beginning July
14, 1999. Mr. Battagline provided Mr. Tkacik with legal
arguments establishing that the canceled debt was nonrecourse.
Mr. Tkacik reached the same conclusion and, on September 8, 1999,
informed Mr. Battagline.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011