- 13 -
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE." The
reference to Publication 1383, however, did not mention
petitioner's right to Appeals consideration. In addition,
Publication 1383 was not attached to the copy of the 30-day
letter provided by respondent. It therefore is unclear whether
Publication 1383 was even mailed to petitioner.
Second, petitioner did exactly what the 30-day letter
encouraged--she attempted to resolve the matter by written
correspondence. The letter stated:
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGE(S), WE
ENCOURAGE YOU TO WORK WITH US TO RESOLVE THE MATTER BY
MAIL. WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE ITEM(S) IN QUESTION ON
YOUR RETURN CAN BE RESOLVED BY WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE.
PLEASE RETURN A SIGNED STATEMENT OF EXPLANATION AND
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ALONG WITH A COPY OF THIS
NOTICE IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE.
On February 15, 1994, petitioner informed respondent that she
disagreed with respondent's proposed changes. On February 18,
1994, petitioner mailed respondent a letter detailing her
position. Respondent wrote back on April 4, 1994, but did not
respond to the issues raised by petitioner. Petitioner wrote
again on April 26, 1994, and requested that respondent address
petitioner's positions. Respondent issued the notice of
deficiency before she replied to petitioner's April 26, 1994,
letter. This is not a case where the taxpayer chose silence as
her litigation strategy. See DeVenney v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
927, 933 (1985); Rogers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-374.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011