Larry D. & Gail Scott - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          Appeals Officer John Dennis Smith (Mr. Smith) from respondent’s             
          Appeals Office in Jackson, Mississippi (Appeals) advised                    
          petitioners that he had been assigned their case.  However, Mr.             
          Smith returned the case to the examination division on November             
          12, 1992, for further development.                                          
               Revenue Agent Phyllis Shearer (Ms. Shearer) was assigned to            
          resume the examination.  She met with Mr. Hunter on December 11,            
          1992, and had several telephone conversations with him after                
          their meeting.  At the conclusion of her examination, Ms. Shearer           
          prepared a revised revenue agent’s report (the revised RAR).  In            
          the revised RAR deficiencies of $9,032 and $11,853 for the years            
          1989 and 1990, respectively, are proposed.   Petitioners did not            
          agree with the proposed adjustments contained in the revised RAR            
          and requested that the case be sent back to Appeals.  On March              
          19, 1993, Ms. Shearer returned the case to Mr. Smith.  On April             
          8, 1993, Mr. Smith notified petitioners that the case had been              
          returned to him.                                                            
               By letter dated April 14, 1993, Mr. Smith scheduled a June             
          14, 1993, conference with Mr. Hunter, but Mr. Hunter failed to              
          appear.  Petitioners retained a different representative, Ernest            
          D. Kelly (Mr. Kelly), sometime thereafter.  Because Mr. Kelly’s             
          office was in New Orleans, Louisiana, on June 25, 1993,                     
          petitioners requested that their case be transferred to the New             
          Orleans Appeals Office.  Respondent determined that the case did            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011