Stephen Mitchell Day - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          scheduled for February 28, 2002, at the Appeals Office in                   
          Washington, D.C.  In response to petitioner’s request for                   
          collection alternatives, Settlement Officer Craca asked                     
          petitioner to submit income tax returns for taxable years 1997              
          through 2000 and “A completed Offer in Compromise package for               
          consideration.”                                                             
               At petitioner’s request, the hearing originally scheduled              
          for February 28, 2002, was continued so as to provide petitioner            
          an opportunity to prepare and file the requested documents.  In             
          March 2002, petitioner filed the requested income tax returns,              
          but he did not file an offer in compromise.                                 
               In a letter dated June 12, 2002, respondent informed                   
          petitioner that his case was being transferred to the Appeals               
          Office in Houston, Texas (Houston Appeals Office), and that a new           
          Appeals officer would be assigned his case.  The Houston Appeals            
          Office, in a letter dated July 17, 2002, requested that                     
          petitioner file an income tax return for the 2001 taxable year              
          and a form concomitant to an offer in compromise.  A hearing                
          under section 6330 was scheduled for August 14, 2002, with said             
          hearing to be conducted via telephone.                                      
               Petitioner did not submit to the Houston Appeals Office                
          either an offer in compromise or the requested tax return for               
          2001.  He instead objected to having his case transferred,                  
          because he wanted a face to face hearing under section 6330.                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011