- 6 -
In support of her position, petitioner states, inter alia:
Why did it take Respondent nine years to notify Peti-
tioner that they did not have her returns on file for
the years 1989 through 1993, if, in fact, they did not
have the returns, unless Respondent, through laxity and
clerical bungling, lost track of Petitioner’s returns;
or else, deceitfully and intentionally, with malice
aforethought, submerged Petitioner’s returns and de-
ferred contact with her, all the while tabulating
penalties and interest that would have been far less
significant had the “Total” lines been timely drawn?
The Notice of Deficiency sent to Petitioner in January
of 1998 clearly witnesses that the potential for stun-
ning penalties and interest is increased proportionate
to the delay in notification * * * .
* * * * * * *
If the IRS is allowed to collect monies for alleged
“unfiled” returns from 10 years past, when taxpayers
are only required to keep them for three, what’s to
stop them from seeking to collect for returns they
claim to have no record of that date back 20 years, or
more? The taxpayer should have some means of protect-
ing him-or herself from the burden of filing proof when
the date of notification exceeds the requirement date
for keeping such return. If Respondent can’t keep
track of a taxpayer in this high-tech age, when every-
thing about everyone is easily knowable and privacy
rights are flagrantly violated by legions of both
professional and personal snoops-–many of them employed
by Respondent * * * , then Respondent deserves to lose
any revenue that would accrue from its assessments,
whether taxpayer has proof of filing or not. If Re-
spondent deliberately defers contact with a taxpayer in
order to subsequently collect greater penalties and
interest, then this would constitute not only malicious
intent, but fraud.
* * * * * * *
It is convenient-–and necessary, in the absence of
proof--for Respondent to assert that Petitioner did not
file taxes for the years 1989 through 1993, though it
is impossible to prove such assertion. In fact, Peti-
tioner would not dare willfully omit a filing, in view
of the harassment visited upon her by Respondent in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011