- 20 -
one of the issues before her at the collection hearing. For
instance, when questioned at trial regarding the letter that
accompanied petitioner’s $4,244.75 check and requested the
marking of petitioner’s account “to reflect payment and
resolution of this matter”, Ms. Hornstein explained:
A * * * As far as I’m concerned, payment of the
tax is resolution. The interest is calculated as of
the date payment is made and it’s done by the Service
Center, not by the appeals office.
Q I’m sorry. One more time. As far as you
were concerned, receipt of the check resolved the
matter--
A Result [sic] of the check resolved the tax
matter and I do not--as far as I’m concerned, it closed
my case and it was then closed out of the appeals
office to go to the Service Center for the computation
of the interest up until the date that it was paid.
Hence, Ms. Hornstein explained that her references in
conversations with Mr. Patel to the $4,244.75 were to the amount
of “the tax”; i.e., the income tax liability reflected in
transcripts of petitioner’s account for 1998.
Accordingly, while Mr. Patel and/or petitioner may have had a
different understanding of the meaning of “tax”, the evidence
does not show that Ms. Hornstein at any time affirmatively
misrepresented that $4,244.75 was a “final payoff figure” in the
sense intended by Mr. Patel.
It is also noteworthy that each letter from petitioner that
used language such as “resolved” or “resolution” in reference to
petitioner’s case was followed by one of the above-described
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011