Raymond O. Wright - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         

               At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in              
          New York, New York.  Petitioner's taxable year was the calendar             
          year.  Petitioner did not file returns for 1987 and 1989.  On               
          September 27, 1995, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to             
          petitioner in which it was determined that petitioner had (i)               
          taxable income of $22,535 in 1987, of which $7,900 was determined           
          to be self-employment income, and (ii) taxable income of $31,270            
          in 1989, of which $12,150 was determined to be self-employment              
          income.  The notice also determined that petitioner was liable              
          for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file           
          for both years.                                                             
               Petitioner admits that he received taxable income in the               
          amounts determined, but disputes that any portion of such income            
          in either year was self-employment income.  Petitioner also                 
          disputes his liability for the additions to tax determined by               
          respondent.  Petitioner further contends that, in addition to               
          relief from the additions to tax, he should be relieved of                  
          liability for some or all interest and should have all issues in            
          the case resolved in his favor because of errors, omissions, and            
          delays by respondent that have deprived him of due process.                 
          Denial of Due Process                                                       
               Petitioner's due process complaint concerns his inability to           
          obtain redress in these proceedings for what he contends are                
          various errors, omissions, and delays on the part of respondent,            





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011