- 6 -
in the final notice, were $11,035, $4,540, $5,264, and $2,798,
for 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, respectively. A hearing was held
on January 3, 2002. Subsequently, respondent sent each
petitioner a notice of determination for the years in issue.5
Respondent determined that the proposed levy action was sustained
because petitioners failed to show that they were entitled to any
additional credits or payments, and petitioners were not willing
to discuss any alternatives to the proposed levy action.
Respondent explained:
The Service will not grant an installment agreement unless
the agreement includes all delinquent tax liabilities. The
Service will apply all payments on an agreement in the best
interest of the United States. Generally, payments are
applied to the tax period with the earliest collection
statute expiration date. The trust fund recovery penalty
assessment had the earliest collection statute date.
Payments were applied to the trust fund recovery penalty
first.
* * * * * * *
The Settlement Officer offered you an opportunity to produce
verification of any other designated payments for
consideration for transfer. You did not provide any
additional canceled checks designated to specific tax
periods.
On October 4, 2002, petitioners each filed a Petition for Lien or
Levy Action Under Code Section 6320(c) or 6330(d) for the years
in issue.
5 Respondent also included taxable years 1997 and 1999 in
the Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a
Hearing and in Mr. Lah’s notice of determination, but petitioners
do not dispute those years.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011