- 9 -
failed to raise the period of limitations issue during the
conference. Accordingly, we determine that petitioner did not
exhaust his administrative remedies available within the Internal
Revenue Service. Thus, on this basis alone petitioner is not
entitled to the litigation costs requested in his motion.
In his answer to the amended petition, respondent requested
that the determination in the notice of deficiency in all
respects be approved. On June 4, 1997, within 60 days after
answering the amended petition, respondent wrote to petitioner
and requested a copy of the 1981 income tax return that
petitioner had attempted to file through the revenue officer.
Respondent received no answer from petitioner. On July 22, 1997,
respondent sent a followup letter to petitioner. On August 11,
1997, petitioner responded by asking whether respondent had a
copy of the 1981 income tax return. Petitioner did not reveal
that he had the original document in his possession. On November
18, 1997, respondent replied to petitioner's letter, stating that
respondent did not have a copy of the return and requested a copy
of the return from petitioner for the third time. Petitioner did
not provide respondent with a copy of the 1981 tax return until
March 20, 1998, the Friday before the Monday, March 23, 1998,
trial session during which the case was to be heard. Respondent
then conceded the case, even though the exchange of the document
by petitioner at this late date violated the Court's Pre-Trial
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011