Roger D. and Mary M. Catlow - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
               Beginning in 1984, petitioners’ Federal income tax returns             
          claimed losses and credits from their investment in a partnership           
          organized and operated by Walter J. Hoyt III (Hoyt).  The                   
          partnership was Shorthorn Genetic Engineering 1984-5.  Hoyt was             
          the partnership’s general partner and tax matters partner, and              
          the partnership was subject to the unified audit and litigation             
          procedures of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of               
          1982, Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648.  Hoyt was                  
          convicted on criminal charges relating to the promotion of this             
          and other partnerships.                                                     
               Petitioners’ claim to the losses and credits resulted in the           
          underreporting of their 1981 through 1991 taxable income.  On               
          May 9, 2003, respondent mailed to petitioners a Letter 1058,                
          Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a                
          Hearing.  The notice informed petitioners that respondent                   
          proposed to levy on their property to collect Federal income                
          taxes that they owed for 1981 through 1991.  The notice advised             
          petitioners that they were entitled to a hearing with Appeals to            
          review the propriety of the proposed levy.                                  
               On May 29, 2003, petitioners asked Appeals for the                     
          referenced hearing.  On March 25, 2004, Linda Cochran (Cochran),            
          a settlement officer in Appeals, held the hearing with                      
          petitioners’ counsel.  Cochran and petitioners’ counsel discussed           
          two issues.  The first issue concerned petitioners’ intent to               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011