- 36 -
Because I have just been retained, I have an open
mind about this case, and will be happy to discuss with
you any and all resolutions which you might consider
appropriate, giving due consideration, of course, to
Mr. Lloyd’s advanced age and what I consider to be
limited earning ability.
On November 14, 2005, at 4:51 p.m., Mr. Kauffman sent
another letter by facsimile to the settlement officer. In that
letter, Mr. Kauffman stated in pertinent part:
Re: Henry M. Lloyd * * *
Henry M. Lloyd, P.C. * * *
* * * * * * *
I want to thank you for your prompt reply to the
letter I sent you earlier this morning. This letter is
written to confirm our conversations this afternoon.
Because I have just been retained, let me summarize my
understanding of the status of the above-referenced
matters in the remainder of this letter. Please re-
spond to this letter only if my summary is incorrect.
I understand that offers-in-compromise were sub-
mitted for Henry M. Lloyd (“Mr. Lloyd”) and Henry M.
Lloyd, P.C. (the “PC”). After the PC’s offer was
formally rejected, it filed an appeal. Sometime in
August of this year, the PC’s appeal was rejected, and
the PC’s delinquency is now back in collection.
In contrast, Mr. Lloyd’s offer has not yet been
formally rejected; however, I understand that you do
intend to reject it, but not until after we speak on
December 6th. When you reject Mr. Lloyd’s offer, you
will send a formal written notice of rejection and
appeal rights. I also understand that * * * [the
second offer specialist] is no longer working the case
at this time.
On December 6th, we will discuss Mr. Lloyd’s
pending request for due process hearing, and potential
alternative approaches to resolving the PC’s and Mr.
Lloyd’s tax delinquencies.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008