- 5 -
solicited petitioner’s proposed collection alternative. Finally,
the settlement officer requested petitioner’s telephone number
for the purpose of holding the hearing. Petitioner responded to
this last request on October 14, 2004, leaving the settlement
officer a voice mail message with petitioner’s telephone number
and a request for a 5-day postponement of the hearing.
On October 18, 2004, petitioner sent a telefax to the
settlement officer, reiterating his request for a postponement of
the hearing scheduled for the next day, and then spoke with the
settlement officer by telephone that same day. In the telephone
conversation, petitioner informed the settlement officer that
petitioner’s representative, Mr. Paul, needed more time to
prepare for the hearing and that Mr. Paul would explain
petitioner’s position and why petitioner had not furnished
respondent with additional information that had been requested.
The settlement officer reiterated that respondent’s Appeals
Office would not consider matters that courts have determined are
frivolous or groundless and that the hearing would focus on
collection alternatives, petitioner’s compliance, and any
nonfrivolous arguments. The parties agreed that petitioner would
telephone the settlement officer by October 25, 2004, to
reschedule the hearing.
Neither petitioner nor Mr. Paul communicated with the
settlement officer by October 25, 2004. On October 27, 2004,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007