Duane E. Hudspath - Page 13

                                        -13-                                          
               the 1996 and 1997 assessments; 4.) there was a failure                 
               to record the assessments for the 1996 and 1997 assess-                
               ments; 5.) there was a failure to provide record of                    
               assessment for the 1996 and 1997 assessments; and                      
               6.) there was a failure to send Notices of Assessment                  
               for the 1996 and 1997 tax assessments.”                                
               After multiple telephone contacts, and an in-office                    
               recorded conference, the taxpayer voluntarily entered                  
               into an Installment Agreement for $130.00/month payable                
               on the 26th of each month.  The taxpayer has made his                  
               first installment payment and has also paid the one-                   
               time user fee of $43.00.  Placement of the taxpayer’s                  
               account into installment agreement status will prevent                 
               enforced collection action from occurring; therefore,                  
               the issued Notice of Intent to Levy has become moot.                   
               The taxpayer is aware that a Notice of Federal Tax Lien                
               may be filed if the agreement defaults, and is also                    
               aware that interest will continue to accrue until the                  
               balances due are paid in full.                                         
                 BRIEF BACKGROUND OF COLLECTION DUE PROCESS HEARING                   
               On October 21, 2003, a conference letter was issued to                 
               the taxpayer scheduling the conference requested for                   
               November 13, 2003, at 1:30 p.m.  This letter presented                 
               the taxpayer with an overview of how the liability                     
               arose, and also defined for the taxpayer the scope of                  
               the actual Collection Due Process conference.                          
               The taxpayer responded via phone and mail correspon-                   
               dence that the conference would need to be rescheduled                 
               for a later time.  The taxpayer is legally blind and                   
               needed the additional time to make preparations for a                  
               conference--to include orchestrating travel accommoda-                 
               tions and having someone read him all correspondence.                  
               On 11/13/2003 and again on 11/20/2003, detailed phone                  
               conferences were held with the taxpayer.  Appeals                      
               learned the taxpayer’s position appeared to be that                    
               even though he acknowledged signing the Decision docu-                 
               ment (as referenced in detail above), he was never                     
               advised how that would translate in terms of actual                    
               assessment amount.                                                     
               Appeals explained the Collection Process for the tax-                  
               payer.  Streamline Installment Agreement criteria were                 
               explained to the taxpayer in detail.  He qualifies for                 





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011