- 6 -
letter relate to the 2000 offer or the 2003 offer. Be that as it
may, it is clear that from August 2003 the focus of the parties
was on the 2003 offer.4
Mr. Barry’s August 6 letter to petitioner also advised
petitioner that Mr. Barry intended to file a Notice of Federal
Tax Lien unless petitioner appealed his decision to do so in the
manner explained in the letter. Mr. Barry’s decision to file a
Notice of Federal Tax Lien was made, at least in part, in order
to establish the priority of the Government’s interest in real
estate owned by petitioner. See sec. 6323.
Petitioner’s response to Mr. Barry’s August 6 letter came in
a letter dated September 12, 2003. Petitioner provided some of
the additional information but once again refused to provide
information regarding his wife’s 2002 income.5
4 In a memorandum dated Sept. 25, 2003, Mr. Barry notes that
the 2000 offer was “returned”. Otherwise the ultimate
disposition of the 2000 offer remains as much a mystery as its
status from July 2000 through June 2003.
5 The dispute between Mr. Barry and petitioner on this point
is somewhat puzzling inasmuch as the information sought was
apparent from a copy of the 2002 joint Federal income tax return
filed by petitioner and his wife. The return shows adjusted
gross income of $149,421. It appears that the 2002 joint return
was reviewed by Mr. Barry, and petitioner must have been aware
that Mr. Barry had access to that return.
It should also be noted that, under the circumstances, Mr.
Barry’s request for petitioner’s wife’s income was consistent
with sec. 301.7122-1(c)(2)(ii)(A), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007