John and Louisa A. Hodel - Page 13

               Petitioner contends that he made additional verbal requests            
          for refunds of the 1986 and 1987 overpayments during a conference           
          with Appeals Officer Roger Caruso (Mr. Caruso) held in February             
          1993.  Petitioner testified as follows about the conversation               
          that he and Mr. Caruso had concerning the rental arrangement                
          between the FCC and the nursery:                                            
               I did mention to him, in a subtle manner as opposed to a               
               demand-type thing, that in the event that the rental concept           
               is disallowed, then it will result in a net operating loss             
               on * * * my 1989 and 1990 returns, that I would like to be             
               able to utilize.  And at that point, I think I got a nod.              
          Petitioner claims that Mr. Caruso assured him that the NOL's                
          would be taken into account during the final adjustment process.            
          However, on February 16, 1994, respondent issued a notice of                
          deficiency that failed to address the NOL's or refunds.                     
          Petitioner asserts that he contacted Appeals Officer Lynn                   
          Morrison regarding the omission and was told that the issue would           
          be resolved by the Tax Court and his verbal requests for refunds            
          constituted valid claims made within the period of limitations.             
          At no time prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency did            
          petitioners file a protective claim for refund (Form 843), or any           
          written request regarding the 1986 or 1987 overpayments resulting           
          from the NOL's.2                                                            

          2    Petitioners filed a refund suit in the U.S. District Court             
          for the Middle District of Florida, claiming a refund or credit             
          based solely on their 1986 return as filed.  The District Court             
          ruled that the refund or credit was barred by sec. 6511.  Hodel             
          v. United States, 74 AFTR 2d 94-6001, 94-2 USTC par. 50,427 (M.D.           

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011