- 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 by unpublished opinion 205 F.3d 1333 (4th Cir. 2000).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