William Edward Thomason - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, dated                 
          July 8, 2004.  Petitioner, utilizing Form 12153, Request for a              
          Collection Due Process Hearing, timely sought a hearing,                    
          explaining his disagreement as follows:                                     
               Everything you claim I owe is false.  My income has                    
               been so small for so long--If I filed--I’m sure I would                
               be eligable [sic] for Govt. help.  I have no idea how                  
               you arrived at the false numbers you claim against me.                 
               I have suffered much because of your tactics of                        
               intimidation and look forward to getting the whole mess                
               straightened out.                                                      
               The IRS Office of Appeals thereafter sent petitioner a                 
          letter dated December 3, 2004, briefly outlining the Appeals                
          process, explaining the issues that could be raised, indicating             
          that challenges to the tax liability would be unavailable except            
          through other avenues such as the audit reconsideration process,            
          advising of materials that should be submitted for consideration            
          of any collection alternatives, and requesting that petitioner              
          call to discuss and schedule the requested hearing.  Petitioner             
          called on December 17, 2004, continuing to voice disagreement               
          with the liabilities.  He was again urged to file missing returns           
          and to pursue audit reconsideration, but he apparently indicated            
          that he “was not interested” in making an appointment with a                
          local auditor or examiner.  Petitioner also stated that he wanted           
          a face-to-face collection hearing.                                          
               On January 12, 2005, the settlement officer with Appeals to            
          whom petitioner’s case had been assigned sent a letter scheduling           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011