Alfred E. Gallade - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          Plan participants except for petitioner, to the profit-sharing              
          plan trust.  First American then arranged for the remaining                 
          assets, to which petitioner was entitled, to be transferred from            
          the Plan trust to GCI on August 18 and September 23, 1986.                  
               During the summer 1986, respondent assigned GCI’s                      
          application for a determination to an employee plans specialist.            
          During the period July 1986 through January 1987, the specialist            
          and GCI’s representatives corresponded concerning the                       
          application.  On or about March 31, 1987, the matter was                    
          submitted internally within respondent’s office for technical               
          advice regarding the Plan’s termination.  On June 9, 1988,                  
          respondent’s national office issued a technical advice                      
          memorandum, stating its position.  On or about July 27, 1988, GCI           
          withdrew its application for a determination letter.  Thereafter,           
          this issue was addressed in the examination of petitioner which             
          led to this controversy.                                                    
               A closing conference was held on October 23, 1991, and it              
          was attended by petitioner, respondent’s agent, the agent’s                 
          supervisor, and Mr. Zdonek.  At this meeting, respondent’s agent            
          discussed the substantive issues and the reasons he believed that           
          a section 6661 penalty for substantial understatement should                
          apply.  Mr. Zdonek told respondent’s agent that he believed this            
          penalty should not apply.                                                   
          Evidentiary Objections                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011