- 13 -
Court, he participates in an Appeals Office conference or at
least requests such a conference and files a written protest if
one is required in order to obtain an Appeals Office conference.
See sec. 301.7430-1(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
On May 29, 1996, respondent sent a 30-day letter regarding
petitioner’s 1993 and 1994 tax years to both the Atherton and
Millbrae addresses. The 30-day letter indicated that petitioner
could request an Appeals Office conference. Petitioner failed to
respond to this letter.
Petitioner attempts to excuse this failure by relying upon
section 301.7430-1(e), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Under this
regulation, a party is deemed to have exhausted his
administrative remedies if the party did not receive the notice
of proposed deficiency (30-day letter) prior to the issuance of
the statutory notice and the failure to receive such notice was
not due to actions of the party (such as a failure to supply
requested information or a current mailing address to the
District Director or service center having jurisdiction over the
tax matter) and the party does not refuse to participate in an
Appeals conference while the case is in docketed status. See
sec. 301.7430-1(e)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Petitioner’s reliance on the regulation is misplaced because
petitioner’s own actions contributed to his failure to receive
the 30-day letter. On September 25, 1995, petitioner mailed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011