- 5 -
offer for acceptance.4 In the letter, she also suggested that
petitioners enter into a regular installment agreement for $836
per month.
On June 3, 2002, petitioners faxed Revenue Officer Griggs a
letter stating:
I am unwilling and unable to accept this
evaluation by your office. I currently have no
earnings other than my wife’s income and due to my
heart condition current prospects for employment are
very slim. * * * I have explained my circumstances to
you in writing and verbally and consider you (sic) lack
of understanding as nothing more than harassment in
this case. Therefore I am requesting that this case be
forwarded back to Appeals (Bill Smith).
An Appeals hearing was held with Mr. Ashurst on behalf of
petitioners on July 22, 2002. The hearing focused on
petitioners’ OIC as well as other collection alternatives. It
was agreed that Mr. Ashurst would inform Appeals Officer Smith
about his future work prospects. No such information was
provided, however. Further, subsequent attempts to contact
petitioners failed because no working phone numbers were
available.
On December 2, 2002, Appeals Officer Smith sent petitioners
the Determination Notices rejecting their OIC and concluding that
collection could proceed. The Determination Notices stated that
4 After considering the additional information provided by
petitioners, Revenue Officer Griggs determined that petitioners
would be able to pay $836 per month based upon petitioners’
monthly income of $5,257 and monthly expenses of $4,421.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011