- 2 - petitioner alleged that he was not afforded a fair hearing and/or that he was denied due process. Petitioner had requested time within which to seek a private letter ruling as to whether he was an employee or self-employed. Respondent’s Appeals Officer Richard Geltzer (the Appeals officer) agreed to permit additional time and after approximately 6 months the Appeals officer was advised that an examination had resulted in a decision that petitioner was an employee. Petitioner claims that respondent’s Appeals officer refused to allow him additional time within which to seek a private letter ruling on the question of his employment status. Instead of obtaining a private letter ruling during the 6-month period, petitioner sought an audit examination of his employment status. We consider whether respondent’s determination to proceed with collection, under those circumstances, was an abuse of respondent’s discretion. FINDINGS OF FACT At the time of the filing of his petition, petitioner resided in Southbury, Connecticut. During the taxable years 1991 through 1994, petitioner provided computer consulting services to various entities. For the 1991, 1992, and 1993 tax years, petitioner filed returns reporting income from wages with Forms W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement) attached which reflected the withholding of tax from petitioner’s wages. Petitioner’s 1991, 1992, and 1993 returns reflected tax due of $1,562, $2,677 andPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011