- 3 -
from the sale as the gain; application of itemized deductions and
four additional standard deductions for dependent children.”
Petitioner further alleged that the capital gain for 1995 was
derived from “the sale of primary residence and the purchase of
the replacement house prior to the sale is [sic] does not create
a taxable event,” and the “examiner used the standard deduction
against * * * [his] withholdings.” Respondent, in the answer,
denied the assignment of errors alleged by petitioner and
attached complete copies of the notices of deficiency to the
answer.
On December 8, 2000, respondent invited petitioner to a
meeting to discuss the case pursuant to Branerton Corp. v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974); however, petitioner neither
appeared at the meeting nor contacted respondent to reschedule.
On February 2, 2001, respondent again sent petitioner a
letter inviting him to a conference to discuss the case.
Respondent advised petitioner that if he failed to appear,
respondent would move to dismiss the case. Again, petitioner
neither appeared nor contacted respondent.
On February 26, 2001, respondent sent petitioner a third
letter inviting him to a conference to discuss the case. Again,
respondent advised petitioner that if he failed to appear,
respondent would move to dismiss the case, and petitioner neither
appeared nor contacted respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011