- 16 -
payout information contained on the Form 433-D or from their
following the advice of respondent’s employees or agents to
discontinue their installment payments, the Appeals Office should
consider whether it is appropriate to abate interest associated
with such delay. Cf. Douponce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-
398. In light of the confusion caused by respondent’s errors in
processing this case, petitioners should also be allowed to make,
and the Appeals Office should consider, a new offer in compromise
or a new installment agreement.
On remand, the Appeals Office should also determine whether
Mrs. Haws should have been included in the notice of
determination. We point out that petitioners are joint filers,
the levy is proposed for a joint tax liability, and respondent
issued a notice of intent to levy addressed to both petitioners.
Also, the administrative record shows that throughout this
proceeding respondent has addressed correspondence to both
petitioners. Further, there is no evidence that respondent
contacted Mrs. Haws regarding her failure to sign Form 12153.
See 4 Administration, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH), sec.
8.7.2.3.3(3), at 27,277 (effective Nov. 13, 2001) (stating that
Appeals should attempt to get written confirmation from a
nonsigning spouse whether he or she also wishes a hearing).
Accordingly, we withhold action on respondent’s motion to dismiss
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011