Orlando Bujosa - Page 4




                                        - 3 -                                         
          taxable years 1987 and 1988.  Respondent mailed statutory notices           
          of deficiency for 1987 and 1988 to petitioner at his last known             
          address on March 9, 1994.  Petitioner did not request judicial              
          review of these deficiencies.                                               
               On February 5, 2002, respondent issued and mailed a Final              
          Notice - Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of your Right to a             
          Hearing regarding taxable years 1987 and 1988 to petitioner.                
          This notice sought to collect taxes and additions to tax in the             
          amounts of $9,973.28 and $12,467.41, respectively, for 1987 and             
          $11,091.20 and $11,194.60, respectively, for 1988.  Petitioner              
          timely requested a hearing regarding the proposed collection                
          action.  Petitioner received a hearing consisting of telephone              
          conferences on November 25, 2002, and March 25, 2003.  The                  
          discussions primarily centered around an offer-in-compromise                
          (OIC), as the Appeals officer advised that petitioner’s                     
          underlying tax liabilities would not be considered.                         
               After several attempted submissions, on April 23, 2003,                
          petitioner finally made a complete and reviewable offer based on            
          doubt as to collectibility.  The Appeals officer forwarded the              
          OIC to respondent’s offer specialist for consideration.  The                
          offer specialist reviewed the offer and made repeated requests of           
          petitioner for additional information.  Petitioner failed to                
          respond to any of the requests, so respondent’s offer specialist            
          returned the OIC to the Appeals officer.  The Appeals officer               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007