John Alfred Laszloffy - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
               With third-party information returns and Bureau of Labor               
          Statistics figures, respondent reconstructed petitioner’s 1992              
          and 1993 income.                                                            
               On November 27, 1995, based on respondent’s reconstruction             
          of petitioner’s income, respondent issued to petitioner a notice            
          of deficiency relating to 1992 and 1993 in which respondent                 
          determined the above income tax deficiencies and additions to tax           
          for failure to file and failure to pay estimated income tax.                
               Petitioner received respondent’s notice of deficiency.                 
          Petitioner, however, did not petition this Court to redetermine             
          the income tax deficiencies and additions to tax set forth                  
          therein.                                                                    
               On June 17, 1996, respondent assessed the above income tax             
          deficiencies, additions to tax for failure to file and failure to           
          pay estimated income taxes, and related interest.                           
               On December 24, 2004, respondent mailed to petitioner a                
          Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a                
          Hearing (levy notice) relating to the above unpaid liabilities.             
               On December 30, 2004, petitioner requested a hearing with              
          respondent’s Appeals Office with respect to the proposed levy               
          action.  On June 7, 2005, respondent’s Appeals officer held a               
          telephone hearing with petitioner.  During the hearing,                     
          petitioner did not propose collection alternatives to                       
          respondent’s Appeals officer.  Instead, petitioner presented                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011