- 12 -
Petitioner further alleges that the effect of the “deadline” was
a failure by Mr. Kroll to take into consideration both the issues
raised by the taxpayer and the balancing of efficient collection
and taxpayer intrusion.
The difficulty with this argument is that, while petitioner
may have preferred more time to provide the materials requested,
respondent’s conduct in these circumstances can hardly be
characterized as arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in
fact or law. The record reflects that throughout the
administrative process petitioner was given multiple and repeated
opportunities to submit sufficient information to support his
offer in compromise. Petitioner’s counsel should also have been
well aware of the consequences of failure to provide requested
materials. An earlier offer had been returned for this reason,
and Mr. Kroll’s November 22, 2002, and January 21, 2003, letters
clearly advised Mr. Karaszkiewicz that a failure to supply the
additional information requested would lead to rejection of
petitioner’s subsequent offer and issuance of a determination
letter without further consideration.
Concerning particularly the final “deadline” of which
petitioner complains, respondent issued the notice of
determination on May 14, 2003. This date is more than 2 months
after Mr. Kroll’s final request for information on March 10,
2003. It is also 6 weeks after the March 25, 2003, date by which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011