- 3 -
Following issuance by respondent’s notice of the filing of a
tax lien with respect to the years at issue, 1997, 2000, and
2001, petitioner timely requested a hearing. That hearing was
conducted by telephone between respondent’s Appeals officer and
petitioner’s certified public accountant, Mr. Shaw. A notice of
determination was thereafter issued based upon the failure to
make payments on the amounts due and the failure to offer a
viable collection alternative. However, in the course of the
contacts between petitioner’s representative and the Appeals
officer, the Appeals officer believed that petitioner was having
financial difficulties and requested that petitioner provide him
with financial information by a certain date. That information,
however, was never provided, and the Appeals officer noted in the
notice of determination: “Since I received no financial
information, I could not determine a collection alternative.”
The Appeals officer concluded that issuance of the notice of
determination was appropriate, and petitioner thereafter filed
his petition in this Court timely. Petitioner did not challenge
the underlying tax liability with the Appeals officer.
Petitioner contends he is entitled to a carryover of net
operating losses that his spouse sustained in a real estate
activity prior to their marriage and that these losses offset the
tax liabilities that are the subject of this case. Petitioner,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011