- 8 -
petitioners’ responsibility.3 During the telephone conference,
petitioners requested a delay in discussions on a payment
schedule or any further collection alternatives until the issue
of misapplied payments was resolved and an exact balance
determined.
The Appeals officer later discovered petitioners did not
file their 2001 Federal income tax return, and she immediately
issued a notice of determination stating that petitioners did
“not qualify for collection alternatives such as Offer in
Compromise or Installment Agreement since you are not in
compliance due to your not filing your tax return for the year
2001 and not making any estimated payments.”
Although petitioners claim their 1988 tax liability should
have been satisfied in 1990, at the trial of this case, they did
not present conclusive evidence or testimony substantiating this
claim. Petitioners did not subpoena the mortgagee, John
Donnelly, with respect to collection of the mortgage by the IRS
and did not subpoena Revenue Officer Spivey to confirm the
veracity of their claim.
The Appeals officer could have easily investigated the
matter; however, this Court has previously held that, even if the
Appeals officer erred in failing to consider the accuracy of the
3Sec. 6330 does not afford the taxpayer the right to have a
witness subpoenaed for the Appeals hearing. Therefore, the
Appeals officer had no duty to subpoena Mr. Spivey. Davis v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 41-42 (2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011