- 7 -
exceed the actual value of such assets. As a result,
the Estate’s assets cannot be rightfully levied by the
Government.
* * * * * * *
As a result of the revenue officer’s failure to suggest
a course for working this matter out, the taxpayer has
not had the opportunity to seek possible collection
alternatives. Such alternatives would include a
partial payment immediately, with some cash being used
to pursue the class action claims. Hopefully, the
class action cases will then bring sufficient sums to
cover the outstanding estate taxes. Or the Estate
could pursue an Offer in Compromise based on doubt as
to the Estate’s ability to pay the tax liability. Or
the taxpayer could pursue some other alternative based
upon the good faith suggestions of the government. In
any event, a levy is not an appropriate action to take
under the circumstances.
On April 27, 2004, the estate submitted a Form 433-B, Collection
Information Statement for Businesses, which indicated that the
estate had $338,720.19 in investments and $162,169 in cash.
By letter dated November 2, 2004, to Mr. Williams, a face-
to-face Appeals conference was initially scheduled for November
22, 2004, at the Appeals Office in Tampa, Florida. On November
19, 2004, Mr. Williams spoke with James Feist (Mr. Feist), the
Appeals officer assigned to the estate’s case, and they agreed to
postpone the scheduled hearing for 2 to 3 weeks to allow the
estate additional time to prepare the delinquent tax returns.
The face-to-face hearing was rescheduled for December 17, 2004.
Mr. Williams called Mr. Feist the morning of the rescheduled
hearing to request another postponement. Mr. Williams explained
that he had changed law firms and was experiencing difficulty in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007