Daniel L. Ostrum - Page 4




                                        - 3 -                                         
               On July 20, 2001, respondent assessed additions to tax for             
          failure to file and to pay timely, and interest for 1998.                   
          Respondent applied petitioner’s overpayment of $569.73 from 2000            
          to his 1998 tax liability.  Petitioner has made no further                  
          payments on his tax liability for 1998.                                     
               Respondent issued a Letter 1058, Final Notice of Intent to             
          Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, and petitioner timely           
          requested a hearing.  In his request for a hearing, petitioner              
          stated that he disagreed with the notice because he felt that               
          respondent was trying to collect money that was actually owed to            
          him.                                                                        
               At the Appeals Office hearing petitioner stated that he                
          filed his 1997 Federal tax return late because he knew he was due           
          a refund, and he did not want it used to offset his child support           
          obligation.  He did not timely file the 1998 return, he said,               
          because he thought the 1997 refund would be applied as a credit             
          to his 1998 tax liability.  He attributes his predicament to the            
          Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for not informing the public that            
          there is a limited period within which to obtain a refund.                  
                                     Discussion                                       
          Summary Judgment                                                            
               Petitioner argues that he is due a credit from his 1997 tax            
          return and an abatement of interest and penalties.  Respondent              
          asserts that, as a matter of law, the overpayment for 1997 is               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007