- 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 Nevada
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011