- 3 -
repeatedly proven that EIC, dependents and head of household are
valid claims.” (Emphasis in original.)
On March 9, 2001, respondent sent petitioner a letter
scheduling the hearing with an Appeals officer on March 20, 2001
in Syracuse, New York. In response to petitioner’s request to
reschedule the hearing, the Appeals officer sent petitioner a
letter on March 16, 2001, rescheduling the hearing to March 22,
2001, in Syracuse, New York. Petitioner did not appear at the
hearing. On March 22, 2001, the Appeals officer sent petitioner
a letter notifying her that if she did not contact him within 14
days, he would close the file with respect to the hearing
request. On April 9, 2001, in response to a telephone message
left by petitioner, the Appeals officer left a telephone message
with petitioner requesting that she call him regarding
rescheduling the hearing. Petitioner did not return the
telephone call.
On May 9, 2001, respondent sent petitioner a notice of
determination. In the notice of determination, respondent
stated:
Appeals has determined that the notice of lien filed
for this tax period properly balances the need for efficient
collection of the tax with your concerns over the
intrusiveness of the collection action. You have not raised
an issue concerning the underlying liability that can be
considered in a due process hearing and have not made a
payment proposal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011