- 13 -
should not be on the desk of Sue McConaughy. I feel
there is ample time remaining (until April 15, 1996) in
which to get the matter before an appeals officer
before any statute of limitations expires.
To that end, this is a demand that you forward the
Hasbrouck appeal to the next level. Your excuse:
“...we need the original documents with which to send
the matter to appeal” is, in my opinion, self-serving
nonsense. Your tax examiner made a determination and
issued subsequent “findings” based on what is
available, there is no logical reason an appeal cannot
be accomplished using the same documents.
Request for any extension of time is denied. The
1992, 93 and ‘94 Federal Income Tax returns of
HASBROUCK stand as submitted. We have a right to an
appeal. We demand that right and we demand it be
accomplished before an 90 day letter is issued.
In a letter dated October 26, 1995, petitioners requested
the “previous court rulings”. Mark Murray responded to this
letter, in a letter dated October 30, 1995, which states in
relevant part:
I am responding to your letter dated October 26,
1995 in which you requested “...all pertinent data,
citations of law and/or authority, and detailed
referenced support data...” regarding the examination
of your 1992, 1993, and 1994 federal income tax
returns.
I am unable to comply with your request at this
time because, at your request, the case files and their
contents have been forwarded to the Appeals Division in
Denver and now fall within that office’s jurisdiction.
I will, however, forward your request so that
appropriate reference information from the file can be
sent to you.
Petitioners’ case was assigned to Anita Teichrow, an Appeals
officer in the Helena Appeals Office. In a letter dated
November 30, 1995, Ms. Teichrow again requested that petitioners
sign a consent to waive the limitations period. Ms. Teichrow’s
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011