- 7 -
The motion was predicated on the ground that respondent’s
district counsel office had not yet received the administrative
file pertaining to petitioner’s 1998 return (the administrative
file). On December 16, 1999, petitioner filed an Opposition to
respondent’s motion, objecting to a 60-day extension but agreeing
to a 30-day extension. By Order dated December 20, 1999,
respondent’s motion was granted in that the time to file an
answer was extended to January 19, 2000.
In the meantime, on December 17, 1999, respondent’s district
counsel office in Washington, D.C. (district counsel), wrote the
following letter to Mr. Gardner:
As you are aware, the government filed a motion to
extend time to answer the Nguyen case. As explained in
my voice mail to you, I have yet to receive the
administrative file in this case. A preliminary review
of Ms. Nguyen’s account indicates that the Service
accepted her 1998 return sometime in August 1999, and
sent her a refund on September 13, 1999. It is unclear
as to whether or not she was sent a letter advising her
that her return was accepted. I would appreciate your
notifying me if she received such a letter.
If I find that Ms. Nguyen’s 1998 return has
already been accepted by the Service, I will recommend
that an answer not be filed in this case, but rather a
decision document reflecting no deficiency due from Ms.
Nguyen and no overpayment due to her for tax year 1998.
If you have a question, please call me at * * * .
The record suggests that Mr. Gardner did not notify district
counsel that petitioner had received the no-change letter.
On January 14, 2000, district counsel received the
administrative file, confirmed the issuance of the no-change
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011