- 7 -
claimed by petitioner.6
In this case, the San Leandro address is the address listed
on the return filed most recently before the issuance of the
notice. The San Leandro address was also the address listed for
petitioner in respondent’s computerized database on dates shortly
6 There are other inconsistencies between petitioner’s
testimony and statements contained in documents filed prior to
the hearing. In the petition, petitioner alleges that he did not
receive the notice and “had no knowledge of the mailing of such
until several months after the purported mailing”. (Emphasis
added.) In the declaration referred to above he states that he
was “wholly unaware of any IRS audit for 1987 and any deficiency
determination until 1997/1998 when * * * [he] was contacted by
IRS Collection”. At the hearing, he testified on direct
examination as follows:
Q. When did you first find out that you – that the
IRS had made a tax assessment against you?
A. I believe it was in ’97, or 1998 – probably ’97.
Q. Would you state how you discovered this fact?
A. The Franchise Tax Board sent a levy on my wages at
Eckhoff Accountancy Corporation.
Q. And what did you do after you found out about that
levy?
A. I then contacted – after speaking with the Franchise
Tax Board, they indicated to me to contact the
Internal Revenue Service, which I did.
* * * * * * *
Q. And when was the first time you discovered that
the IRS did, in fact, send you a 90-day letter?
A. I believe I already answered that question. I
think it was ’97 or ’98. Somewhere in there.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011