- 14 -- 14 - This conduct places petitioners squarely in the position of the taxpayer in McDaniel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-148. In McDaniel, respondent sent a letter to the taxpayer (Tax Notice CP-2501) requesting an explanation as to why information reported on the taxpayer's return did not match information provided by third party payors. After the taxpayer failed to respond to the letter, respondent issued a notice of deficiency. Six months after the petition was filed, the taxpayer provided information that enabled respondent to concede that there was no deficiency. In denying the taxpayer's motion for administrative and litigation costs this Court stated Although respondent ultimately conceded each of the issues raised in the notice of deficiency, she was not able to do so without the information from petitioner. A request for such information was made before the statutory notice of deficiency was issued. Any delay in this case was caused by petitioner and petitioner's counsel. Had petitioner acted promptly, this matter could have been resolved shortly after petitioner received the Tax Notice CP-2501 * * *. We find that respondent's position was not unreasonable * * * [McDaniel v. Commissioner, supra; emphasis added.] In short, just as in McDaniel v. Commissioner, supra, any delay in resolution of this case was caused by petitioners and their counsel. If petitioners had responded to the 30-day letter, this matter could have been resolved prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency. We conclude that respondent had a reasonable basis in fact and in law for the issuance of the notice of deficiency.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011