- 5 - h) The entire offer consideration process was conducted by the Appeals Division which further violates the intent of Congress under the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (the Act) to the extent petitioner has been denied independent review of the rejected offer as required under the Act. 5. Petitioner has at all times acted in good faith in connection with his tax affairs. Therefore denial of an offer that would give him a “fresh start” is misplaced. Moreover, no alternatives such as income collateral agreements were made available to either the Petitioner or his representative prior to issuance of the rejection. After the case was set for trial, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Although petitioner was ordered to serve on respondent and file with the Court a written response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, he failed to do so. However, when the case was called for hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment, petitioner was permitted to present the testimony of Zerjav as a means of explaining his position. See Rule 121(b), (d). Zerjav testified: Our firm represents not only Mr. Tillman but literally hundreds of other folks who have sought relief--tax relief through an offer in compromise program. In this particular instance, a collection action, a collecting hearing, due process was requested. And the process of evaluating suitability for an offer in compromise was handled not by an offer specialist but, rather, by the appeals officer assigned to the case. Allegations of error in the petition in this case, apparently prepared by Zerjav, are identical to those in at least one otherPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011