Estate of Nancy Sblendorio, Deceased, Michael F. Poppo, Executor - Page 8

                                        - 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