- 19 -
mentions collection alternatives, he did not propose an offer in
compromise or an installment agreement. Furthermore, Mr. Hunter
did not deny that he failed to provide respondent with requested
financial information. See Roman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2004-20 (Commissioner’s rejection of a collection alternative was
not abuse of discretion where taxpayer failed to provide current
financial information); Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-153. While the letter also purports to raise a spousal
defense on behalf of Mrs. Hunter, no cognizable defense is
identified. In any event, she is not a party to the collection
case.
At trial, Mr. Hunter was asked repeatedly to identify the
information he wished to present to the settlement officer.
Mr. Hunter nevertheless failed to identify any relevant
information. Accordingly, we conclude that the absence of a
telephone hearing has not affected Mr. Hunter’s rights, and the
case may be decided on the present record. See Gougler v.
Commissioner, supra; see also Carrillo v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2005-290 (“absent a showing by the taxpayer of some
irregularity * * *, a Form 4340 reflecting that tax liabilities
were assessed and remain unpaid is sufficient to support
collection action * * * . * * * it is not an abuse of discretion
for an Appeals officer to rely on Form 4340”).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011