Juanita and Emmanuel Kendricks - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
               Also by letter dated October 24, 2001, respondent sent                 
          petitioners a notice of intent to levy and a notice of their                
          right to a collection due process hearing with respect to their             
          1985 tax year, claiming unpaid tax, penalties, and interest for             
          that year of $110,676.                                                      
          Collection Due Process Hearing                                              
               On November 20, 2001, respondent received timely requests              
          for collection due process hearings from Mrs. Kendricks for her             
          1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985 tax years and from petitioners for               
          their 1985 tax year.  In attachments to the requests, petitioners           
          state that they dispute the liabilities underlying the unpaid               
          assessments (sometimes, the underlying liabilities) and have not            
          yet had an opportunity to contest those liabilities.  They also             
          claim that any levy would cause them hardship.                              
               In response to the requests, on September 18, 2002,                    
          petitioners and their counsel were afforded a 2-hour, face-to-              
          face conference with Appeals Officer Allen D. Powell.  At the               
          conference, petitioners admitted that they had received the                 
          notices but, nevertheless, wished to dispute the underlying                 
          liabilities.  Appeals Officer Powell informed petitioners that              
          the Internal Revenue Code prohibited them from raising the                  
          underlying liabilities when they had received a notice of                   
          deficiency or otherwise had an opportunity to dispute the tax               
          liability.  Appeals Officer Powell then asked whether petitioners           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011