- 23 -
conduct consistently reflected their intent to do just that
(i.e., to resolve the matter in court). The text and the tone of
the October 28, 1997, letter to respondent reflects defiance of
respondent’s Appeals Office conference procedure, not a
conclusion by petitioners or by petitioners’ prior counsel that
there was inadequate time to be granted an Appeals Office
conference. We also note that, from the date of respondent’s
March 18, 1998, 30-day letters approximately 6 months actually
remained until the periods of limitations in question were
scheduled to expire in mid- and late September of 1998. Thus,
petitioners’ argument that respondent’s Manual precluded
petitioners from having an Appeals Office conference is
incorrect.
During the docketed, pretrial phase of these cases,
petitioners’ representatives chose not to meet with respondent’s
Appeals Office. Not until shortly before trial did petitioners’
representatives, apparently for the first time, explain that
certain documents referenced and identified in the transaction
documents did not exist.
Where a taxpayer is offered by respondent the opportunity
for an Appeals Office conference and where a taxpayer wishes to
comply with the exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement
and to preserve his or her right to recover litigation costs, the
taxpayer would be advised to request an Appeals Office
conference. It is then left with respondent’s Appeals Office to
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011