- 7 -
would close his case based upon the information available in the
case file.
Meanwhile, petitioner had been notified by a letter dated
January 2, 2002, that his collection case with respect to 1999
had been assigned to the IRS Office of Appeals in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, due to a heavy workload in the New Jersey office. The
letter informed petitioner that if he preferred a face-to-face
conference, his case would be returned to the New Jersey office
upon request. By a facsimile sent in early February of 2002,
petitioner represented that he had previously communicated such a
preference for an in-person hearing and further cited his
intention to have a representative appear with him at the
meeting. At some point thereafter, not otherwise revealed by the
record, petitioner’s collection case for 1999 was reassigned to
Ms. Carter.
By a letter dated April 2, 2002, Robert W. Lynch (Mr. Lynch)
advised Ms. Carter that he had been retained to represent
petitioner. His letter referenced the proposed April 9, 2002,
appointment and informed Ms. Carter: “Neither Mr. Newstat nor I
will be able to attend that day. I will call you after my
meeting with Mr. Newstat [when Mr. Lynch would obtain the case
file] to discuss this matter in detail, and to reschedule a
meeting, if appropriate.”
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