The Department of Revenue Services Audit Division does not date correspondence. If you receive communication from them be sure to record the date.
I do not know what date I received the package announcing my audit, but it did say the appointment was May 3, 2012, and they wanted me to waive the Statute of Limitations before April 6.
Yes, you heard me. The letter said Lisa Cocco may have already contacted me but to please mail the waiver before April 6, 2012. Ms. Cocco contacted me for the first time yesterday afternoon.
So I wrote this letter to Department of Revenue Services Problem Resolution:
——————————–
April 13, 2012
DRS Problem Resolution Taxpayer Advocate Office 25 Sigourney Street Ste 2 Hartford,CT06106-5032
Dear Sirs,
I received an undated package of information from Diane Pinho Monteiro the beginning of last month saying I will be audited. Enclosed is a copy of the cover letter. The letter says Lisa Cocco may have already contacted me for a preliminary meeting. Prominently placed is a request that I sign and return, before April 6, 2012 a “Consent to Extend the Statute of Limitations”.
Yesterday at about 1 PM I received my first contact with the Audit Division with a phone call from Ms Cocco expecting that I would have already signed and returned the Consent form.
In a lengthy but cordial and polite conversation with Ms. Cocco I was surprised to be called directly and by implication “uncooperative” for hesitating to sign the Consent form. I pointed out repeatedly that the problem they have is with the Statute of Limitations, not with me. She apparently did not understand that point, so I asked to speak with her supervisor.
I spoke with Diane Pinho-Monteiro as well, who likewise does not seem to understand the simple point. She repeatedly pointed out that the law allows me to sign the Consent form as though giving up rights is a viable alternative to being protected by Statute.
I received a fax from Ms Cocco (enclosed) stating “there is no option to request an informal hearing…” and asking for “cooperation and assistance”. No mention is made of the fact that I asked for acknowledgement that abiding by Statute is not uncooperative. It appears to me removing the “option to request an informal hearing” is retaliation for allowing Statute to rule the audit.
Please clarify my position as a tax payer in an audit. Does not signing the Consent form mean I am uncooperative and subject to sanctions from the Audit Division?
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Kent Johnson, Owner
————————————-
I will keep you all updated on the progress of this issue, and the entire audit.
Copyright 2012 Kent Johnson
