| Robert Clarkson 864-225-3061 email | Nelson Waller 864-225-0882 |
CDPH PACKETAll the information and tactics you need to win your Collection Due Process Hearing
All of these for $100, including S&H. This is normally a $120 deal! Ordering Instructions: Or click here for order form. |
This part is now password protected. Call Dr. Clarkson for the access code and then click here.
[Contains out-of-date motions and briefs] |
| From: Trudy Shell July 6, 2006 M G Hallman Settlement Officer RE: Trudy Shell SSN 123-45-6789; John Shell SSN 789-12-3456 Tax Court Docket # 20188-05L. 2002 Tax year Ms Hallman, My husband and I came to your office as instructed at 10am on July 5, 2006. Since you picked an early date (due to your office remodeling) rather than going to the end of the month as the Tax Court allowed, we did not have much time to prepare. We received the notice to be there at that set time, just 5 days earlier. We dispute the tax liability because we didn’t have a chance to present our side in Tax Court. We have records of business expenses, deductions, telephone excise tax etc… As we told you many times, we didn’t receive the Notice of Deficiency. We keep our letters from the IRS in good order and respond promptly when required. Had we received a 90 day letter, we would have petitioned the Tax Court as the law allows. We requested in our CDPH last year that you present proof that we received the 90 days letters. You have not done so. On July 5, 2006, you presented to us an e-mail from the post office which did not say or prove that we received the 90 day letters. The Post Office e-mail stated the some type of correspondence was sent from the IRS to our hometown, and not our specific address, on Sept 17, 2004. (Label tracking ID 7105567871) In the past the IRS has sent notices and letters to us at an incorrect address even though they have our correct address on file. The mail sent to the incorrect address is not always forwarded to us. Congress was concerned that your tax agency frequently sent important notices knowingly to incorrect addresses. Therefore the elected representatives of the people enacted the CDPH law in §6330(c)(2)(B). Your office has failed in its duty and we request this case be sent back to the Audit Division so we can receive a new 90 day letter and have our day in court. Your agency and/or the Post Office must have filed somewhere, the Return Receipt (the green card) which shows who received the alleged certified letter and what date it was received. Neither agency has furnished that receipt to us; therefore you have not met your burden of proof. Please send us a copy of the Return Receipt. Somebody has it. We request Audit Reconsideration so we can present our documents and records. Also we request collection alternatives CNC (Currently Not Collectible) status as we are poor and cannot pay the assessment. The levy is not appropriate because:
If you had not accelerated the date of our CDPH, we would have been able to complete your forms. We request more time to complete the OIC form, the financial statement and tax returns for previous years. We do not appreciate the rough treatment we received when we met with you and the persecution of our witness(s). Also we expect reimbursement of our large expenses of our Petition to Tax Court following your previous determination to deny us our in-person hearing. The law says (as the tax court pointed out) we are entitled to a hearing. Your denial of our hearing entitlement was harassment and a crude attempt to deny us our rights. Yours, Trudy Shell |
For technical questions and assistance contact PNwebmaster