Jerome J. Norris - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
               On March 22, 2004, respondent sent petitioner a notification           
          for petitioner’s 2002 tax period, reflecting that petitioner had            
          a balance of income tax due for 2002 of 48 cents.  In addition,             
          respondent advised that petitioner was liable for a $175.44 late            
          payment penalty and $264.08 in additional interest.  Accordingly,           
          respondent’s notice reflected a total balance due of $440.00 for            
          2002, as follows:                                                           
                    Income tax                    $.48                                
                    Late payment penalty          175.44                              
                    Interest                       264.08                             
                   Total                         440.00                              
               On April 6, 2004, petitioner filed a Form 12153, Request for           
          a Collection Due Process Hearing.  Petitioner explained to                  
          respondent that his payments discharged his liability in full and           
          that the notification sent by respondent represented “a colossal            
          blunder”.  On September 2, 2004, petitioner and an Appeals                  
          officer discussed these matters by telephone.                               
               On September 29, 2004, respondent sent petitioner a Notice             
          of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section              
          6320 and/or 6330, sustaining the proposed levy.  In that notice,            
          respondent indicated:  “If taxpayers are on an installment                  
          agreement, they are charged a late payment penalty and interest             
          on the unpaid balance until they pay the amount they owe in                 
          full.”  In response, petitioner timely filed a petition with this           
          Court challenging the proposed levy.                                        







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011