Roger L. and Patricia A. Lavallee - Page 11

                                                - 11 -                                                
            scheduled date, and during his meeting with Appeals Officer                               
            Whittle on June 29, 1994, Mr. Conner explained that petitioners                           
            were claiming additional amounts of Schedule C deductions.                                
            Appeals Officer Whittle originally believed that the period of                            
            limitations was no longer open for 1985 and 1987.11                                       
            Nevertheless, despite finding that petitioners had a "weak case",                         
            Appeals Officer Whittle ultimately agreed with Mr. Conner that                            
            petitioners should be considered to have made an informal claim                           
            for refund for which the period of limitations had not run and                            
            that petitioners' claimed Schedule C deductions should be                                 
                  Petitioners then filed a claim with respondent to recover                           
            the administrative costs incurred in connection with their case.                          
            In a letter dated December 14, 1994, respondent denied                                    
            petitioners' claim for such costs.  On January 26, 1995,                                  
            petitioners filed with the Court a petition for administrative                            
            costs pursuant to section 7430(f)(2).  The petition stated that                           
            respondent had denied petitioners' claim for $9,311.12 of                                 
            administrative costs.  The petition also stated that petitioners                          
            were now claiming $13,586.12 of administrative costs.                                     

                  11Since petitioners' 1986 year involved only a negligible                           
            deficiency under the terms of the settlement agreement, the                               
            parties did not discuss whether the period of limitations                                 
            remained open with respect to that year.                                                  

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011