- 29 -
Respondent’s explanation for this contention is as follows:
“Petitioner was advised on two occasions to make tax payments.
In response to the first suggestion, made on January 8, 2002, he
made one de minimus payment of $812.00. He ignored the second
request which was made on April 3, 2002.”
The $812 payment was the first payment required under the
first installment proposal. Petitioner made the payment promptly
on receiving Krogue’s suggestion, and petitioner was credited
with that payment on January 10, 2002.
When petitioner and Krogue succeeded in communicating again,
Krogue suggested that petitioner submit a new proposal. As a
result, petitioner promptly submitted the second installment
proposal. The April 3, 2002, discussion that respondent refers
to occurred 4 weeks after Krogue had questioned petitioner at
length about his submissions and 3 weeks after she received the
second installment proposal. Krogue asked petitioner to make a
$350 monthly payment on the modified second installment proposal,
but petitioner expected this proposal to be approved shortly and
so held off. However, in short order the modified second
installment proposal was rejected.
On the basis of the foregoing analysis of the only specifics
that respondent offers, we conclude that petitioner generally
responded promptly to Krogue’s requests and directions and, to
use respondent’s words, petitioner was not solely responsible for
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008