- 6 -
Petitioner’s only request of the Appeals officer was for a
delay while he pursued the collection alternative of seeking a
private letter ruling on his employment status for the years
subject to the enforced collection. Petitioner was afforded
additional time, but, instead of seeking a ruling, he applied to
respondent’s examination division, which found him to be an
employee.1 Collection was delayed for at least 6 months while
petitioner sought the administrative resolution of his
outstanding tax liabilities. Petitioner contends that respondent
abused his discretion by not allowing him an additional stay to
seek a ruling.
Respondent did not impede petitioner in seeking an
alternative to collection. Instead, respondent’s Appeals Officer
waited until he received notification that petitioner’s attempt
1 Petitioner, at trial, stated that someone in respondent’s
office had told him to seek an examination instead of a private
letter ruling. Petitioner, however, was unable to provide the
name of the person who might have given him that advice. It is
petitioner’s belief that respondent’s examination personnel do
not have as much latitude in deciding employment status and that
he would have been successful in seeking a private letter ruling
because the individuals who consider rulings have a broader
spectrum of matter they can consider in the process. Petitioner
contends that he is entitled to extra time before collection is
permitted, because it was respondent’s “error” to send him to the
wrong place for relief. Petitioner has not shown a sufficient
factual predicate for his argument. Even if petitioner had shown
that he had received the alleged advice from someone in
respondent’s office, petitioner was not forced to seek one type
of relief rather than another. It was his choice to seek an
examination of his employment status, rather than seeking a
ruling during the time allotted.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011