Thomas J. & Gisella Sabath - Page 5

                                         -5-                                          
          hearing, and Appeals held the hearing with petitioners on May 23,           
          2002.  Petitioners subsequently submitted an offer in compromise.           
               On December 10, 2003, Appeals issued to petitioners a notice           
          of determination stating that the proposed levy was appropriate.            
          The notice stated that petitioners had raised two issues as to              
          the levy:  (1) Whether the liability sought by respondent was               
          correct, and (2) whether respondent should have accepted their              
          offer in compromise.  As to the first issue, Appeals determined             
          that respondent had correctly determined the amount of the                  
          liability.  As to the second issue, Appeals determined that                 
          petitioners did not qualify for an offer in compromise because              
          they had not filed Form 943, Employer’s Annual Tax Return for               
          Agricultural Employees, and Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax           
          Return, as required for 2002.                                               
               In their petition to this Court, petitioners challenged the            
          amount of tax remaining unpaid as a result of the bankruptcy case           
          and requested that the Court review their payment history and               
          respondent’s assessments of interest and penalties.  Petitioners            
          alleged that the amount of tax set forth in the notice of                   
          determination was based on the following errors:  (1) Respondent            
          incorrectly assessed penalties and interest during the pendency             
          of petitioners’ bankruptcy proceeding; (2) respondent misapplied            
          payments made during the proceeding to interests and penalties              
          rather than to principal; and (3) respondent failed to consider             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011