Felix and Liliana P. Prakasam - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          with the 1995 and 1996 tax liabilities of petitioners.  On                  
          November 6, 2003, respondent also issued a Notice of Federal Tax            
          Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320 to                   
          petitioners in connection with the 1995 and 1996 tax liabilities.           
               On or about December 5, 2003, Renaissance Health Systems LLC           
          (Nominee, Transferee, or Alter-Ego, Felix K. Prakasam)3 submitted           
          a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing,                 
          setting forth disagreement with the filed Notice of Federal Tax             
          Lien.  On February 25, 2004, the Appeals Office held a hearing              
          with petitioners’ representatives.                                          
               On June 9, 2004, respondent issued a Decision Letter                   
          Concerning Equivalent Hearing under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of             
          the Internal Revenue Code (Decision Letter I) to petitioner for             
          tax year 1995.  On July 8, 2004, petitioners mailed a petition              
          to this Court setting forth their disagreement with Decision                
          Letter I.                                                                   
               On June 18, 2004, respondent issued a Decision Letter                  
          Concerning Equivalent Hearing under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of             
          the Internal Revenue Code (Decision Letter II) to petitioners for           
          tax year 1996.  On July 12, 2004, petitioners filed a petition              
          with this Court setting forth their disagreement with Decision              
          Letter II.                                                                  

               3  In light of our resolution of the case, we need not                 
          address respondent’s argument that this entity had no rights to             
          its own collection hearing or equivalent hearing.                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011