- 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 other
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011