Robert Newstat - Page 19

                                       - 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