- 4 -
“purple pencil people.”2 It was one of these people who caught
and corrected the Parkers’ mistake. The Commissioner then
assessed the correct amount of tax--$28,446--in the IRS’s
records. Because there was a balance due, the Commissioner began
trying to collect, unencumbered by the Code’s current due process
requirements.3 First, he filed a Federal tax lien on the
Parkers’ condominium in March 1998. Then, in November 1998, he
levied on Ms. Goode-Parker’s bank account. We specifically find
that she is credible in saying that this was the first she knew
of her and her husband’s tax trouble. She promptly contacted the
IRS, and for the next three years made monthly payments of $50.
In September 2000, the strains on the Parkers’ marriage
became very great: They still resided in the same condo, but
began living separate lives and keeping to different rooms. In
February 2002, Ms. Goode-Parker filed a Form 8857, requesting
innocent spouse relief from the Parkers’ joint 1996 tax
liability. In November 2002, before the Commissioner made his
determination, the Parkers separated in the traditional sense.
2 An IRS supervisor, though not himself a purple pencil
person, credibly testified that as part of his duties he
proofreads returns processed by the purple pencil people, and
that the purpose of purple pencil people is to point out patent
problems on returns with a purple pencil.
3 The collection due process requirements in sections 6320
and 6330 became effective for collection actions begun on or
after January 19, 1999. Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3401(d), 112 Stat.
750.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011