David A. Brown - Page 12

                                       - 11 -                                         
          made the required payments for a payout.  Cf. Douponce v.                   
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-398 (holding that when a taxpayer             
          receives “an amount due” from an employee of respondent and then            
          promptly pays that amount, respondent’s failure to abate interest           
          thereafter is an abuse of discretion).                                      
               Petitioner completed a Form 12153 to request a CDP hearing,            
          but the record reflects a breakdown of communication between the            
          petitioner and Ms. Sharp with respect to both the scheduling and            
          purpose of the hearing.  The original date of the hearing was               
          March 28, 2002.  Ms. Sharp’s affidavit and case activity record             
          indicate that the date was later changed to April 11, 2002.                 
          Petitioner testified that he never received notice of either                
          hearing date and that there never was a hearing scheduled.  In              
          addition, petitioner contends that he was told by Ms. Sharp not             
          to bother attending any hearing if his intent was to dispute the            
          underlying tax liability, and Ms. Sharp’s affidavit does not                
          clearly contradict this testimony.                                          
               In our view, petitioner’s failure to appear at a hearing in            
          the present case was at least partly the result of Ms. Sharp’s              
          misleading him.  The record does not show clearly that petitioner           
          ever had an opportunity to present his claim that he was notified           
          of “an amount due” to resolve his tax and made the payment.  If             
          the Appeals officer had reviewed this matter and denied                     
          petitioner an abatement of interest, we could properly review               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011