- 3 - included the disallowance of petitioner’s Schedule C business loss, the inclusion of certain royalties in income, and the imposition of late-filing and accuracy-related penalties. Thereafter, two appointments were scheduled between petitioner and respondent’s agent to discuss the 1992 return, but petitioner canceled both appointments. On April 19, 1995, respondent notified petitioner that respondent’s previous proposed determinations had not changed. On July 26, 1995, a notice of deficiency was sent to petitioner determining a $2,483 deficiency, a $42 late-filing penalty, and a $497 accuracy- related penalty. Petitioner did not file a petition with this Court seeking a redetermination of the deficiency and penalties, and the amounts determined in the notice of deficiency were assessed. On October 31, 1995, petitioner requested reconsideration of respondent’s determination, but the request was denied because petitioner had failed to timely contest the notice of deficiency. On February 13, 1996, petitioner called a problem resolution officer at the Ogden Service Center to request a review of his 1992 tax liability. The Problem Resolution Office in the Ogden Service Center reviewed the matter and, in a letter to petitioner dated May 3, 1996, informed petitioner that a review of his account for 1992 indicated that the balance due was correct. In June of 1996, petitioner sent a letter to Senator Bryan of NevadaPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011