- 6 - occurred in person, over the telephone, and via e-mail and without petitioner’s participation. Among other communications, the revenue officers in California and Oregon communicated to the Appeals officer concern about assets that petitioner may have transferred to a nominee. Also, the revenue officer in Oregon suggested to the Appeals officer and to the offer specialist that they should “probe and inquire if there were any links or money stream to * * * [petitioner]” relating to a home in Oregon. On May 27, 2004, the offer specialist recommended that the Appeals Office reject petitioner’s OIC, explaining that petitioner had paid insufficient individual estimated taxes and that the eldercare business had paid insufficient payroll taxes. The offer specialist also explained that petitioner’s OIC should be rejected because the outstanding taxes petitioner owed related to what the offer specialist described as “nominee, transferee, fraud issues –- case is filled with them as it is the basis of the assessments.” On May 26, 2005, the Appeals Office issued a notice of determination (notice) sustaining the tax lien filed against petitioner. Attached to the notice was the Appeals officer’s general statement that petitioner’s OIC was not in the best interest of the Government because of, among other things,Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011