- 20 -
file, petitioner had filed no Federal income tax returns for 5
years. Only after a second warning and the expiration of 3 more
months, during which time petitioner failed to respond, did
respondent prepare substitute returns for petitioner. Eight more
months passed before petitioner submitted his own returns. We
see no reason to reward such tactics.
With respect to the taxable years 1990 and 1991, petitioner
essentially contends that section 1.874-1(b)(1), Income Tax
Regs., is invalid. Given the posture of this case, however,
there is no reason to delve into the validity of this new
regulation. Under the factual circumstances here the regulation
confers no additional rights on petitioner, and even if we were
to hold some portion of this regulation invalid, petitioner would
not prevail under our analysis of the provisions of section
874(a) and the relevant case law.
There is one area of the new regulation, however, that
deserves some mention. For the 1991 taxable year, petitioner
submitted his return before the 16-month time limit set forth in
1.874-1(b)(1), Income Tax Regs., had expired, but well after
respondent had sent petitioner the so-called doomsday letter
notifying him that he was not entitled to claim any deductions
for that year. As stated, however, respondent repeatedly
notified petitioner of his failure to file returns prior to
sending a doomsday letter.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011