Carolyn S. Eifert, A/K/A Sue Armstrong - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          court in September 1986.  The IRS representative told petitioner            
          that petitioner needed to "respond" to the notice of deficiency             
          in order to "correct the problem" and avoid assessment of the               
          deficiency, additions to tax, and interest.                                 
               Thereafter, petitioner contacted her accountant and asked              
          him to resolve the matter for her.  The accountant ultimately               
          advised petitioner to retain a lawyer.                                      
               Petitioner contacted several lawyers but ultimately decided            
          to retain Leland Franks (petitioner's counsel).                             
               On May 29, 1996, petitioner's counsel telephoned the Austin            
          service center and spoke with Molly Ramirez (Ms. Ramirez), a tax            
          examiner.  Petitioner's counsel advised Ms. Ramirez that the                
          notice of deficiency erroneously determined income for 1993 in              
          respect of the Moncor Bank debt that had been discharged in                 
          bankruptcy in September 1986.  Immediately following the                    
          conversation, petitioner's counsel faxed two documents to Ms.               
          Ramirez:  (1) a Form 2848 (Power of Attorney and Declaration of             
          Representative) authorizing petitioner's counsel to represent               
          petitioner before the IRS, and (2) the Final Decree from                    
          petitioner's bankruptcy proceeding.8                                        

          8 The fax log report generated by petitioner's counsel's fax                
          machine indicates that the Final Decree was in fact transmitted             
          to Ms. Ramirez.  Respondent's counsel states that a copy of the             
          Final Decree was not received by Ms. Ramirez.  However, in view             
          of the fact that Ms. Ramirez never contacted petitioner's counsel           
          to advise that she had not received all of the documents that had           
          been transmitted, and because respondent's counsel's statement is           
          unsupported in the record, we do not accept it.                             




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