1. Businesses
  2. Tax Decisions & Orders
  3. Robert Wiles, dba Metaforms

Robert Wiles, dba Metaforms



On November 3, 2009, the Department issued the Taxpayer two assessments for the gross receipts tax periods ending 2005 and 2006.  The Taxpayer never protested the assessments and did not pay the assessments in full.  The Taxpayer became a delinquent taxpayer.  On March 21, 2013, the Department sent the Taxpayer a Final Notice Before Seizure in reference to a lien.  On April 25, 2013, the Taxpayer was assessed for gross receipts tax for the period ending 2008.  The Taxpayer did not file a protest or pay anything on the assessment.  The Taxpayer received another Final Notice Before Seizure in June 2013, and was told by the Department that he must pay 20% of what was owed or the funds would be taken from his bank account.  The Taxpayer met with a Department employee and asked about a payment plan, but then took no further action to set up a payment plan or to pay his liability.  On October 29, 2013, the Department issued a warrant of levy to the bank where the Taxpayer had accounts.  The funds to pay the Taxpayer’s liability were seized from his accounts.  The Taxpayer learned in November 2013 that his funds had been seized.  As a result, the Taxpayer had numerous bank fees imposed.  On November 25, 2013, the Taxpayer filed a protest to the warrant of levy.  As part of the Taxpayer’s protest, he advised that part of the funds seized were from the account of another person, and that the Taxpayer was only named on the account.  The Department investigated this and refunded that portion of the money to the other person.  This caused the amount seized to be inadequate to satisfy the Taxpayer’s entire liability, and left him with a remaining balance outstanding.  The Taxpayer argued that the Department improperly seized his funds and should reimburse him for bank sees and compensate him for the time he has spent dealing with the issue.  The Hearing Officer found that the warrant of levy was properly served and the Taxpayer was not entitled to any of the reimbursements he was seeking.  The Taxpayer’s protest was denied.