- 7 -
Ultimately, through correspondence over several months and a
telephone conference on or about April 6, 2005, petitioner’s
administrative hearing was conducted. In essence, petitioner’s
positions at the administrative hearing can be summarized as
follows: (1) The NFTL for 1999 should not have been filed until
an administrative hearing was conducted with respect to
respondent’s notice of intent to levy; (2) the proceeds of the
1999 check were misapplied to liabilities for years other than
1999;5 and (3) petitioner’s request for abatement of additions to
tax was not properly considered.
In response to petitioner’s second point, respondent
explained his actions by pointing out to petitioner that the 1999
check was not designated to be applied to any particular year.
In response to this explanation, in correspondence that predated
the telephone conference, petitioner noted, “in fact * * * [the
1999 check] was sent with my 1999 return and was for the exact
amount shown as due on that return. I believe almost anyone
would consider a check sent with a particular year (1999) in the
5 Petitioner also submitted an offer-in-compromise (doubt
as to liability) during the administrative hearing as an
alternative to the proposed collection devices. The offer was
rejected. Several times during petitioner’s presentation at
trial he expressly stated that he does not rely upon the denial
as a ground in support of his position that respondent’s
determination to proceed with collection of his 1999 tax
liability is an abuse of discretion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007