- 6 -
The settlement officer’s letter indicated that if the
requested information were not provided by October 1, 2004,
petitioner’s offer-in-compromise would be rejected.
By letter dated September 29, 2004, petitioner provided a
minimal amount of documentation relating to his expenses, stating
that he paid for his expenses in cash. Petitioner’s letter
stated that his interest in “commercial vehicles”, as referenced
in the marital settlement, was limited to a single 1989 Ford
pickup, which he had already listed on his Form 433-A.
Petitioner stated that two of the three companies referenced in
the marital settlement had closed down with no assets, and that
the other company, RMC, was wholly owned by his ex-wife. He
provided no documentation of any sales or transfers of these
companies. Petitioner stated that the Lake Winnebago, Missouri,
address was his “permanent mailing address” and that the Kansas
City “Euclid” address was where “I rent to live”; petitioner
stated that he had no copies of quitclaim deeds. Finally,
petitioner stated that the settlement officer’s request for
financial statements referenced in the marital settlement was
“unclear” and that he had no copy of the statements.
By notice of determination dated October 26, 2004 (the
notice), the Appeals Office sustained the proposed levy. An
attachment to the notice indicated, among other things, that
petitioner’s offer-in-compromise had been rejected because
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011