Howard M. Morgan and Glenice S. Morgan - Page 2




                                                - 2 -                                                  

            See also Rules 13(c) and 40.  On April 15, 1999, respondent                                
            mailed to petitioners’ last known address and former address                               
            notices of deficiency determining a $448,007 deficiency in their                           
            1995 Federal income tax and an $89,601 accuracy-related penalty                            
            under section 6662(a).  Petitioners object to respondent’s                                 
            motion.  Petitioners argue primarily that the notices mailed to                            
            their last known address were invalid because, they assert, the                            
            notices did not contain notice of their right to contact a local                           
            office of the taxpayer advocate and the location and phone number                          
            of the appropriate office.  Petitioners contend that such                                  
            information is required by section 6212(a).  Petitioners argue                             
            alternatively that the petition they filed with this Court after                           
            the 90-day period was timely because they challenged respondent’s                          
            determination through a lawsuit filed in United States District                            
            Court during the 90-day period.                                                            
                  We held an evidentiary hearing on respondent's motion and                            
            shall grant it.                                                                            
                                             Background2                                               
                  Petitioners filed a joint 1995 Federal income tax return.                            
            On April 15, 1999, respondent mailed to each petitioner by                                 

                  2 The Court directed each party to file an opening brief and                         
            an answering brief, the latter limited to making any objection to                          
            the opposing party’s proposed findings of fact.  Petitioners have                          
            not filed an answering brief.  We conclude they have conceded                              
            respondent's proposed findings as correct except to the extent                             
            that their opening brief contains proposed findings inconsistent                           
            therewith.  See Fankhanel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-403,                            
            affd. by unpublished opinion 205 F.3d 1333 (4th Cir. 2000).                                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011