- 27 -
Massachusetts to Pennsylvania to negotiate with MMI over the
amount of the account receivable, and that petitioners and MMI
did not agree about the amount. Petitioners and MMI later agreed
that the account receivable had a purported value of $300,000.
Petitioners indicated that they believed that MMI could pay the
$300,000 liability off in 100 weekly payments of $3,000 to
respondent. Petitioners were aware of the December 15, 1978,
payment agreement between MMI and respondent and that respondent
would receive 200 weekly payments of $1,500 to satisfy
petitioners’ tax liability. Petitioners were aware that MMI sent
respondent several $1,500 checks during 1978 and 1979, and, as of
April 30, 1979, Mr. Enos knew that MMI was no longer sending
respondent money to satisfy the levy.
The most significant factual distinction between the instant
case and Barlow’s, Inc. is that petitioners continued to receive
large amounts of money from MMI after the August 15, 1978, notice
of levy and also after the December 15, 1978, payment agreement
between MMI and respondent, while at the same time knowing that
MMI and respondent were negotiating and did negotiate a payment
agreement for the satisfaction of petitioners’ tax liability.
Petitioners’ business records reflect that after the August
15, 1978, notice of levy, petitioners were purportedly doing
business with MMI, despite petitioners’ prior alleged inability
to collect on MMI’s large debt to them, and despite the fact that
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011