- 9 -
Petitioner did not appear at the date and time Ms. Dellosso
had set for a meeting with petitioner, July 12, 2005, at 10 a.m.
About 2 hours after the time of the appointment, petitioner
called Ms. Dellosso and stated that she was unable to make the
appointment. Petitioner asked for an opportunity to speak to her
accountant and was given 2 days to do so.
Petitioner called Ms. Dellosso 2 days following the canceled
appointment, stated that she had been unable to contact her
accountant, and requested an installment agreement only for 1993
through 1995. According to the case records, Ms. Dellosso
informed petitioner that although she could pay what she wanted,
all years had to be included in either an installment agreement
or an OIC. Ms. Dellosso terminated the call after an unpleasant
exchange of words.
The notice of determination was issued on July 27, 2005.
The Issue for the Court
The underlying tax liabilities are not at issue in this
case.2 The issue for the Court to decide is whether respondent
abused his discretion in determining to pursue the intended
collection action.
2Petitioner conceded at trial the underlying tax liabilities
and with them the abatement of interest and penalties raised in
the petition. See sec. 6201; supra note 1. Had petitioner not
conceded the issues, she would be precluded from raising them.
See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); sec. 301.6320-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. &
Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011