Silvia S. Rodriguez - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          relating to petitioner’s 1988-89 tax years.  On November 16,                
          1999, petitioner filed a Request for a Collection Due Process               
          Hearing, Form 12153, related to her 1989 tax year in which she              
          stated that she wanted respondent to consider her offer in                  
          compromise for that year.  In her request for a hearing, she said           
          that she had health and financial difficulties.                             
               Respondent’s Appeals officer, J. Chris Neighbor (Neighbor),            
          reviewed petitioner’s request for a hearing and her offer in                
          compromise.  On February 18, 2000, Neighbor told petitioner by              
          letter that respondent would not consider her offer in compromise           
          because she had not filed returns for 1991-98.  Neighbor                    
          scheduled a hearing for March 14, 2000, to review petitioner’s              
          tax liabilities for 1988-891 and asked her to let him know within           
          10 days if she preferred a different date.  He also asked                   
          petitioner to give him the following items:  (1) A financial                
          statement for petitioner and her business; (2) signed income tax            
          returns for 1991-98; (3) petitioner’s most recent mortgage                  
          statement showing the remaining balance and the amount of the               
          monthly payment; and (4) information about Silvia International             
          Realty, such as whether it produces income and has employees.               
          Neighbor sent blank financial statement forms for petitioner to             
          complete.                                                                   

               1  Respondent apparently assumed petitioner requested a                
          hearing under sec. 6330(b) for both 1988 and 1989, even though              
          her request only stated 1989.                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011