Simone Joye - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         
               had received from the 1987 Form W-4 that information                   
               has nothing to do with late filing of the tax returns                  
               and the failure to pay the taxes due on those returns.                 
               Therefore, the taxpayer’s argument has no merit with                   
               respect to the Form W-4 instructions because the real                  
               issues in this case are the penalty for the failure to                 
               file timely returns and the penalty for the failure to                 
               pay the taxes due on those returns.  Accordingly, the                  
               penalties are due and payable.                                         
               Furthermore, the taxpayer was not asserted a penalty                   
               for insufficient withholdings of tax from wages.                       
               Therefore, the Form W-4 argument appears to have been                  
               raised to cloud the main issues in this case, which are                
               the Failure to timely file returns and the Failure to                  
               pay the taxes due on those returns.                                    
                         *    *    *    *    *    *    *                              
                                    MY EVALUATION                                     
               I recommend that the Service Center be allowed to issue                
               a Notice of Levy.  [Reproduced literally.]                             
               On October 4, 2000, petitioner filed a petition in response            
          to respondent’s determinations in the notice of determination               
          with respect to only petitioner’s taxable years 1987, 1988, and             
          1989.  In the petition, petitioner alleged:                                 
               IRC Section 6404(e)(1) should be applicable due to the                 
               IRS delays.  Correspondence was sent to the IRS 3/38/90                
               and 6/19/90 regarding the tax periods above.  Peti-                    
               tioner was informed via letter dated 6/29/90 that “No                  
               further action is required of you at this time” and                    
               that “We should have a response for you within 30 days                 
               from the date of this letter.”  The next response was a                
               letter dated 8/9/90 stating “We are looking into the                   
               matter and will answer you more fully within 45 days                   
               from the date of this letter.”  Petitioner then re-                    
               ceived a letter dated 9/27/90 & 7/29/91 requesting that                
               I fill out a Collection Information Statement which was                
               done and submitted to the IRS on 7/31/91.  No further                  
               correspondence was received from the IRS regarding                     
               this.                                                                  






Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011