Attorney-at-Law

SILENCE IS GOLDEN- PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 03/24/2022 at 16:07

Except in an OIC

Despite filing an OIC which “…did not correctly identify the taxpayer, failed to provide correct information about tax liabilities, failed to indicate the reason for the offer, and erroneously reported financial information on Form 433-B,” Order, at p. 4, the long-suffering SO offered Shipra Bhansali d.b.a. Scrum Technologies, Docket No. 17120-19SL, filed 3/24/22, a six-year streamliner IA.  

Despite getting a six-week extension to respond, Shipra said nothing.

My readers will at once intone with one voice “Those who need it won’t read it, and those who read it don’t need it.”

The readers aforesaid know that the minute a collection alternative is offered in a CDP, they’re working on their counterproposal, marshaling facts and figures to support the same. And preparing to seek a further extension, more effectually to do so.

Yes, this is a small-claimer. And yes, a docket search shows the $60 filing fee was waived. So doubt as to collectability has to be front and center. If Shipra hasn’t got the sixty Georges and can establish she hasn’t, even a facially-reasonable IA offer of $180 per month made two (count ’em, two) years ago and based on erroneous information may no longer comport with economic reality.

But ya gotta say so. And have your counteroffer ready. And maybe back it up with a changed-circumstances remand; see my blogpost “Back to the Future,” 8/1/11.

 

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: