- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011