Louis A. and Christine Cox - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          an offer-in-compromise was a viable option in their                         
          circumstances.2                                                             
               On November 25, 2003, the IRS issued to petitioners a                  
          Decision Letter Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6320            
          and/or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to 1999,              
          sustaining the proposed levy collection action but abating the              
          late filing addition.  Likewise, also on November 25, 2003, a               
          Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under               
          Section 6320 and/or 6330 was issued to petitioners with respect             
          to 2000.3  The notice summarized the determination as follows:              

               2 It appears from the record that the Nov. 17, 2003, letter            
          may have been received by the IRS after Mr. Skidmore completed              
          his consideration of petitioners’ 1999 and 2000 case.  However,             
          as indicated infra, the substance of the information therein was            
          fully considered by Mr. Skidmore in conjunction with his                    
          subsequent review of petitioners’ 2001 and 2002 tax years and did           
          not alter (and thus would not as to 1999 and 2000 have altered)             
          his conclusions.  Any timing issues are immaterial on these                 
          facts.                                                                      
               3 It appears from the administrative file that the IRS                 
          prepared two notices of determination dated Nov. 25, 2003, with             
          respect to petitioners’ 2000 tax year.  The notices are identical           
          except for the certified mail numbers handwritten on the first              
          pages and the fact that one is signed by Appeals Team Manager               
          Marianne Hudson and the other is signed by Appeals Team Manager             
          Wesley D. Anderson.  It is unclear if both were sent to                     
          petitioners.  Perhaps, despite being addressed to both                      
          petitioners, one was intended for Mr. Cox and the other for                 
          Mrs. Cox.  In any event, petitioners attached the notice signed             
          by Marianne Hudson to their petition for 2000, and it is that               
          notice that the parties annexed to the stipulation of facts and             
          stipulated was the document upon which the case at docket No.               
          21733-03L was based.  Consistent with the parties’ approach, the            
          Court will treat the stipulated notice as the operative document            
          for purposes of this proceeding and will disregard the possible             
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011