- 19 - The above-quoted language evidences an awareness that the June 26, 2002, meeting was also to be petitioner’s forum for advancing issues such as collection alternatives. Furthermore, a copy of the letter was sent to petitioner, such that he should have been alerted if this scenario differed from his own understanding. When petitioner was unable personally to attend the June 26, 2002, meeting, Ms. Carter met with his representative and even waited 3 more months for any additional information from petitioner before closing the case. Mr. Lynch apparently attempted to meet with petitioner during that time to obtain completed financial forms. Petitioner recites in his petition: The reason Newstat did not respond to Appeal Officer request for production of form 433-A- was that between April to September 2002 and continuing at this time his income was in disarray. * * * He wanted to have a grasp of his income before he gave out Form 433- A. Newstat had read section 6330 and believed presenting and explaining his financial condition at due process hearing in person was his right and he did not lose that right by waiting until due process hearing to present and explain himself in person. A difficulty with this posture is that respondent cannot be expected to wait indefinitely until a taxpayer is ready to submit information germane to his or her collection case.11 In 11 Considerations of both practicality and fairness are implicated in this premise. Indefinite delay in the payment of tax is the equivalent of nonpayment. The Government, upon which all citizens depend, cannot function if tax revenues are not collected. Unjustified delay by some is unfair to those who (continued...)Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011