- 11 -
an Appeals Office conference with respondent. Petitioner now
posits several arguments in an attempt to circumvent her failure
to proceed to Appeals. We shall address each one in turn.
First, petitioner argues that she did not have the
opportunity to exhaust her administrative remedies, because
respondent's determination in the 30-day letter, which afforded
petitioners the opportunity for an Appeals conference, was
"entirely different" than that contained in the notice of
deficiency. In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined
deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income taxes that were
$149,490 greater than the deficiencies determined in the 30-day
letter. In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined
additions to tax for delinquent filing,9 fraud,10 and substantial
understatement as well.
Despite these additional determinations in the notice of
deficiency, the fact remains that the 30-day letter asserted
substantial Federal income tax deficiencies and additions to tax
for the years in issue against both petitioners. These
deficiencies totaled $157,918, and the additions to tax for
delinquent filing totaled $40,537. Petitioner was not required
9In the 30-day letter, respondent determined an addition to
tax for delinquent filing for each of the years in issue. In the
notice of deficiency, respondent determined this addition to tax
for 1986 only, and this amount was less than the total amount
asserted for delinquent filing in the 30-day letter.
10As an alternative to the additions to tax for fraud,
respondent determined additions to tax for negligence.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011