Peter D. Dahlin Attorney at Law, P.S. - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          Collection Information Statement for Businesses, and return it by           
          March 28, 2005, so that collection options could be considered.             
          Ms. Derrick attached to the letter “literal transcripts” of                 
          petitioner’s tax liability.                                                 
               In response, petitioner mailed a letter, dated March 24,               
          2005, to Ms. Derrick, which provided that petitioner was                    
          requesting a “face to face conference” and “The legitimate issues           
          we wish to discuss are delay and issues of mishandling of this              
          matter.”  A telephonic hearing was held on March 30, 2005.  That            
          same day Ms. Derrick mailed to petitioner a letter that requested           
          specific documents and information that would facilitate the                
          Appeals Office’s determination as to whether petitioner was                 
          entitled to a face-to-face hearing.  The letter requested, inter            
          alia, that petitioner complete and return Form 433-B, a copy of             
          which was attached, and explain with supporting documentation why           
          petitioner did “not owe a tax liability for the Form 1120 for the           
          tax year 2000.”  The letter informed petitioner that if                     
          Ms. Derrick did not receive the relevant information by April 13,           
          2005,3 she would issue a notice of determination.  As of April              
          18, 2005, petitioner had not provided the requested information.            
               On May 20, 2005, respondent mailed to petitioner the above-            
          mentioned Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s)           

               3The letter actually stated the date as Apr. 13, 2004, which           
          was a typographical error as the letter was dated Mar. 30, 2005.            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007