- 25 -
[his] audit of my client of [sic] 1985 Form 1040.” Later that
month, Mr. Davis and/or petitioner attended a conference with the
revenue agent’s group manager and supplied receipts and canceled
checks. However, such documentation was insufficient to avoid
the issuance of a notice of deficiency in September 1988, which
notice disallowed all of petitioner’s Schedule C deductions.
Petitioner received the notice but, significantly, did not file a
petition with this Court. If petitioner maintained complete and
accurate records, we fail to understand why he was unable, even
with the help of a certified public accountant, to avoid the
total disallowance of his Schedule C deductions for 1985, and
further, why he would not have filed a petition with this Court
contesting that disallowance.
Second, an error or delay by the Commissioner can be taken
into account only if no significant aspect of the error or delay
is attributable to the taxpayer. See sec. 6404(e)(1). In the
present case, we think that a significant aspect of any error or
delay by respondent is attributable to petitioner, as
demonstrated by the following:
Respondent never recognized Mr. Amigron as petitioner’s
representative; rather, respondent undertook to send all
correspondence directly to petitioner. Presumably, petitioner
received the 30-day letter for 1986 that was mailed to him in
September 1989 at his address in Florida and the “final notice”
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011