- 2 -
describing in some detail why she thought the levy should be
sustained, to the IRS Appeals Office in Oklahoma City. The
Appeals officer in Oklahoma City scheduled a telephone CDP
hearing on a day that Industrial’s representative had been
subpoenaed to testify in California State court. Not wasting any
time after the inevitable default, the Appeals officer wrote a
notice of determination later that same day that sustained the
proposed levy. Industrial argues that this determination was an
abuse of discretion.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Industrial’s 1990-92 taxes first came before this Court in
1994 when Industrial petitioned us to redetermine its
deficiencies for those years. That case finally settled while
our decision was pending on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Industrial, however, never paid and in 2004 the Commissioner
mailed it a notice stating that the IRS intended to collect by
levy. Industrial promptly requested a CDP hearing to seek an
offer-in-compromise. The revenue officer who had been working on
the case forwarded that request to the Oklahoma City Appeals
Office. Accompanying the files was a cover letter from the
revenue officer. The letter is the key to this case, and
deserves to be quoted at some length:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007