- 4 -
liability is currently thousands of times higher that
the value of the asset received. The taxpayer is
working diligently and in good faith with various
professional advisors to evaluate the situation and
remedy the outstanding tax liability.
Petitioners also stated that (1) they intended to prepare and
submit an amended income tax return for 2000 that would reflect
that they were entitled to a refund for that year; and (2) in any
event, the parties should explore alternatives to the proposed
levy including an installment agreement, an offer in compromise,
posting a bond, or substitution of other assets.
On July 2, 2002, Appeals Officer Jerry L. Johnson wrote to
petitioners to inform them that he had scheduled their Appeals
Office hearing for July 25, 2002. Appeals Officer Johnson’s
letter stated in pertinent part:
As explained in the above mentioned code sections and
related documents, a taxpayer may dispute the
underlying liability in a collection due process
hearing only when a notice of deficiency was not
provided to the last known address of the taxpayer, or
where the taxpayer did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute the tax. Since that is the case
here, you will have the opportunity to discuss the
liability at the hearing. In that regard, if you plan
to present or discuss new material, please send me
copies at least five days before our meeting.
On July 22, 2002, Appeals Officer Johnson had a telephone
conversation with petitioners’ representative. During the
conversation, petitioners’ representative stated that, through
the misapplication of complex statutory provisions, petitioners
had overstated their tax liability for 2000 on their original
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011