- 8 -
Mr. Poppo argues that because there was no face-to-face
meeting, there was no “hearing” as that term is commonly
understood. First, Mr. Poppo has not presented any evidence to
suggest that he requested an in-person hearing during the Appeals
process. Moreover, a face-to-face hearing is not a prerequisite
for Appeals consideration. Conferences with Appeals are
informal. Sec. 601.106(c), Statement of Procedural Rules. The
correspondence and telephone conversations between Mr. Poppo and
the Appeals officer are sufficient to constitute a conference
with Appeals.
Mr. Poppo also argues that he could not have received
Appeals consideration because the letter denying relief
demonstrates that the Appeals officer misunderstood one of Mr.
Poppo’s arguments for abatement. The Appeals officer denied the
request for abatement, in part, because Mr. Poppo did not provide
any information to support his suggestion that he had filed the
estate’s return and paid the taxes due timely. Mr. Poppo argues,
however, that he had never suggested to the Appeals officer that
he actually filed the return on time, only that he was under the
mistaken belief that he had filed the return. While this
evidence may suggest that the Appeals officer did not correctly
understand Mr. Poppo’s argument, it does not suggest that the
officer did not consider Mr. Poppo’s arguments. Mr. Poppo has
not presented any evidence to create a question of fact of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007