- 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