- 9 -
4. June 4, 1992, to March 24, 1994
Respondent first sent a letter to petitioners about the
audit on June 3, 1992.4 Morrow closed the audit on June 15, 1993.
The notice of deficiency was forwarded for review by district
counsel on November 16, 1993. Respondent sent the notice of
deficiency on March 24, 1994. We are satisfied by Morrow’s
detailed testimony that all the time spent in concluding
petitioners’ examination and sending the notice of deficiency was
not due to error or delay in performing a ministerial act. Thus,
respondent's refusal to abate interest that accrued from June 4,
1992, to March 24, 1994, was not an abuse of discretion.
5. March 25, 1994, to August 17, 1994
4 Petitioners contend that stipulations 7, 8, and 9 are
incorrect. We disagree.
Stipulations 7, 8, and 9 provide:
7. The examination of petitioners' 1990 return
commenced in June of 1992 and was conducted by senior
tax auditor E. Mitzi Morrow in Van Nuys, California.
8. On June 3, 1992, Ms. Morrow sent a letter to
petitioners setting an appointment on June 17, 1992 for
the examination of their 1990 return.
9. Petitioners were unable to attend the June
17, 1992 appointment because they were traveling in
Israel.
The Court will permit a party to a stipulation to be
relieved from a stipulation if justice requires. See Rule 91(e).
Morrow's testimony and records corroborate the facts stated in
stipulations 7, 8, and 9. Petitioners have offered nothing
showing that stipulations 7, 8, or 9 are incorrect. Thus, we do
not relieve petitioners from the binding effect of a stipulation
of facts.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011