- 8 - See Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 322, 325 (1988); Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 217 (1986). In the instant case, the Appeals officer’s January 23, 2002, letter, responding to petitioner’s January 14, 2002, letter, addressed the issue of an offer in compromise or collection alternatives. Petitioner’s January 30, 2002, letter, sent in reply to the Appeals officer’s January 23, 2002, letter, stated that petitioner’s counsel was attempting to contact petitioner in an effort to discuss the issues proposed in respondent’s January 23, 2002, letter. Petitioner’s January 30, 2002, letter indicated that an extension of time for reply to the Appeals officer’s January 23, 2002, letter was necessary because petitioner, a truck driver, was unavailable to consider the Appeals officer’s letter. The attachment to the notice of determination refers to the Appeals officer’s January 23, 2002, letter to petitioner and indicates that the period for petitioner to respond to that letter was extended. However, according to respondent, no communication from petitioner was received regarding that issue. Petitioner contends that his counsel sent respondent a letter on March 4, 2002, in which petitioner sought to negotiate an offer in compromise or a collection alternative with the Appeals officer. Petitioner alleges that letter states: “AfterPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011