- 13 -
Therefore, taxpayers are required to exhaust available
administrative remedies unless the court determines
that, under the circumstances of the case, such
requirement is unnecessary. [H. Rept. 97-404, supra at
13.]
In this case, petitioner contends that respondent's position was
"set in stone", and petitioners could have agreed to respondent's
proposed adjustments or else proceeded to trial. We disagree.
Nothing in the record suggests that respondent would not have
considered petitioner's claims had she proceeded to Appeals in
1992 and submitted relevant information regarding the joint
return issue.12 The fact that respondent refused to concede the
joint return issue after learning 2 years later that petitioner
had not signed the returns does not persuade us to the contrary.
By then, petitioner had affirmatively alleged in her petition
that she had jointly filed the returns in question. In light of
this, it was respondent's position that petitioner had consented
to her husband's filing of joint returns.
Petitioner also seeks to excuse her failure to pursue
administrative remedies on the grounds that she did not learn
that respondent was seeking to hold her liable for deficiencies
until after the issuance of the notice of deficiency. However,
petitioners received notification from respondent that she would
be conducting an examination of their Federal income tax returns.
12Respondent conceded the addition to tax for fraud against
petitioner shortly after receipt of her forensic report, which
concluded that the signatures on the returns were not
petitioner's.
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