- 10 -
retain counsel until a month after this deadline had passed.
Then, after retaining counsel, petitioner continued to ignore the
30-day letter. It was not until respondent mailed the notice of
deficiency, more than 2 months after the deadline set forth in
the 30-day letter and more than a month after petitioner had
retained counsel, that petitioner made any attempt to contact
respondent.
Petitioner argues that pursuing the Appeals remedy would
have been futile. See Phillips v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 529
(1987), affd. in part and revd. in part on other grounds 851 F.2d
1492 (D.C. Cir. 1988). In Phillips the taxpayer was unaware of
the issue until after his case was docketed in the Tax Court.
Furthermore, we found that the Commissioner’s insistence on
pursuing the matter through litigation and the refusal to
consider the effect of his own revenue rulings “demonstrate[d]
that any discussion of this issue that petitioner attempted was
futile.” Id. at 533. But there is no suggestion here that
respondent’s mind was closed and that development of the case
through the administrative Appeals process would have been
unproductive. The fact is that petitioner never attempted to get
the matter settled before the case was calendared for trial.
Petitioner also cites Cole v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-
375. In Cole we found that the taxpayer had satisfied the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011