- 3 -
Appeals Conference in 2003
In December of 2001 petitioner submitted her last OIC, along
with a request for abatement of penalties and interest. The OIC
and the request for abatement were rejected. The OIC was
rejected because it was determined that petitioner had sufficient
assets to fully pay her outstanding tax liabilities. Petitioner
appealed the rejection, and the appeal was assigned to an Appeals
team located in New York, New York. The Appeals team included a
settlement officer, Gilbert Breitberg, and a team manager, John
O’Dea. In May 2004 the Manhattan Appeals team rejected the OIC
as well as petitioner’s request for abatement of interest and
penalties.
In December 2003, while the Manhattan Appeals team was
considering petitioner’s requests, petitioner wrote a check for
$35,000 to the U.S. Treasury for “Payment for taxes: 1988, 1989,
1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995”. Petitioner sent the check
despite her conclusion that when she offered to pay the taxes
during a meeting with Messrs. Breitberg and O’Dea, the Appeals
team paid “no mind to our presentation”. Initially, respondent
applied the check to the earliest taxes, including penalties and
interest.1 Petitioner wrote to respondent to complain that the
$35,000 was intended to be applied solely against her outstanding
1Except with reference to deficiency procedures, under sec.
6601(e)(1), Interest Treated as Tax, references to underpaid
“tax” include interest on the tax. The term “tax” also includes
additions to the tax, additional amounts, and penalties. Sec.
6665(a)(2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011