David A. Brown - Page 4

                                        - 3 -                                         
          presence, and that “The Appeals Office did not grant a fair                 
          hearing”.                                                                   
               Petitioner further explains that in preparation for his                
          meeting with Ms. Sharp and Mr. Rosenblatt he called Ms. Diane               
          Hakam, Department Manager of the Taxpayer Advocate’s Office in              
          Holtsville, Long Island.  As noted above and in our previous                
          opinion, petitioner alleges that in October 1999, Ms. Ogle of the           
          Taxpayer Advocate’s Office provided petitioner a final payout               
          figure of $14,172 for resolution of his outstanding tax                     
          obligations for 1995 and 1996.  Petitioner states that Ms. Hakam            
          informed him that a file was not available for his examination              
          because the records in question had been destroyed after one year           
          in accordance with office policy.  Petitioner explains that he              
          “did not request such a document in 10/99 because I trusted the             
          taxes were payed in full, relying on representation of the                  
          Taxpayer Advocate’s Office.”  Petitioner describes his                      
          attachments to his status report as a “fax from me to Ms. Ogle              
          confirming the final tax payment due” and four other documents              
          allegedly showing his correspondence with employees of the IRS              
          prior to the “final payment date”.                                          
               Respondent’s status report states that petitioner appeared             
          for hearing at the Long Island, New York Appeals Office so that             
          the settlement officer might consider the specific issues                   
          mentioned in our Order dated April 9, 2004.  Respondent further             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011