- 2 -
issue for our consideration is whether, as petitioners contend,
respondent’s determination of a deficiency is procedurally
flawed.
Petitioners believe that respondent’s issuance of their
deficiency notice was an improper assessment of tax. At the time
of trial, the Court surmised that petitioners’ argument was
without merit. After reviewing the parties’ briefs, we are
convinced that petitioners’ position is without merit.
Essentially, petitioners are confused about the chronology of the
deficiency and assessment processes.
Petitioners Kenneth and Lois Edwards, husband and wife,
resided in Citrus Heights, California, at the time they filed
their petition. Despite 6 months of correspondence, offers to
have meetings, and reassurances that no assessment had been made
at that time, petitioners did not meet or confer on the merits of
the determination with respondent's counsel.
Instead, they chose to file interrogatories requesting
documents connected with the deficiency process, Form 23-C
(Assessment Certificate) and Form 4340 (Certificate of Assessment
and Payments) connected with the assessment process, and the
names of the persons who had determined the deficiency and
prepared the requested forms. Respondent advised petitioners
that their interrogatories were premature and procedurally
flawed.2 Respondent also extended an offer of a meeting where
2 On brief, petitioners raised the issue that respondent’s
answer to the interrogatories was unsatisfying. But petitioners
never moved, under Rule 104(b), to compel a further and better
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011