James Patriot
Wayne • MI • 48184

December 9, 2008

Michael Reynolds
Administrator, Collection Division
P.O. Box 77437
DETROIT , MI 48277-0437

RE: C4748 Notice dated 11/29/08

Dear Mr. Reynolds:

  1. I am in receipt of your C4748 Notice dated 11/29/08 , received on December 2, 2008, a copy of which is enclosed. The notice says your records indicate I have an outstanding tax liability with the State of Michigan .
  2. Please be advised the tax information attached to your notice showing the details on the account in question is completely mistaken and cannot be accurate under any circumstances. I deny the computations and dispute the figures. The Department’s determination is simply wrong, invalid, uncorroborated and has to confirm that no tax liability exists on the account. In fact the notice you said I would receive from the MARCS Collection Manager identifies another set of numbers not equivalent to the purported amount due or putative assessed balance.
  3. The Revenue Division of Department of Treasury, as all government agencies, must proceed in a lawful manner and “shall send to the taxpayer a letter of inquiry stating, in a courteous and nonintimidating manner, the department’s opinion that the taxpayer needs to furnish further information or owes taxes to the state, and the reason for that opinion.”[1] Mr. Reynolds, your notice fails to give a reason for your opinion that I have a tax liability, expect to say, “Please see the attachment, which shows the detail of your account, to understand your liability.”
  4. If this uncertified computer printout is all you have to base your bare assertion for the tax year in question, it is quite obvious the Department is attempting to use hearsay, unauthenticated documents, and incorrect calculations against me and raises more questions than understanding.
  5. Is this assessment founded upon original source documents or simple IRS printouts of a tax deficiency, which are incorrect and should not be relied upon? If original source documents from my employer were used in evaluating an assessment, the numbers would show on their face no credit was given for withholding, which reveals by itself no possible tax liability. Your final score blatantly ignores any deductions for medical, interest, or charity, etc. and demonstrates a willful failure to accurately compute the assessment and a refusal to use the best information available, resulting in an erroneous tax liability calculation.
  6. Since the information used to assess me is all second-hand with no substantiation, can this be a legitimate and acceptable standard I should be permitted to employ to support expenses and deductions? The Revenue Division of Department of Treasury must be held to the same standard regarding the substantiation of information as they are demanding of me. I think before any type of collection activity or “enforcement action” is implemented, the Department should be required to provide me a hearing or conference for a reassessment or appeal to present authenticated documents and reach a resolution or settlement. It is my desire to meet with you, cooperate, substantiate my deductions, and reach a meeting of the minds. Please schedule a meeting for me and send me the date, time, and place.
  7. In the mean time, Mr. Reynolds, please send me source documentation, especially the income figures and a copy of the W-2 form or wage statement so we are on the same page with my employer. I also request from the Department the source of the assessment against me i.e. the certified form(s) from the IRS showing my alleged tax liability and other documentation to prove my AGI, etc. These essential documents have not been furnished to me as required.
  8. I hereby request a copy of the record of assessment with the requirements of 26 CFR part 301.6230-1, which states: If the taxpayer requests a copy of the record of assessment, he shall be furnished a copy of the pertinent parts of the assessment which set forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period and the amount assessed.
  9. If upon further examination, you find the Department’s determination lacks legal foundation or the assessed amount has no merit, please adjust your accounting accordingly.

Respectfully submitted,

James Patriot