Thomas R. Camerato - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
          issued a decision abating a portion of the 1993 deficiency, but             
          denying any abatement of the 1992 deficiency.                               
               On April 7, 1998, petitioner filed a second request for                
          reconsideration.  In May 1998, petitioner contacted the IRS                 
          problem resolution program and was advised of the need to provide           
          records to support his request for reconsideration.  Respondent             
          received records from petitioner on June 9, 1998. On September 3,           
          1998, respondent called petitioner to schedule an appointment to            
          review petitioner’s records.  Petitioner requested that the                 
          appointment be delayed until October 1998 because of a conflict             
          with petitioner’s vacation plans.  On October 6, 1998, petitioner           
          met with respondent, and respondent and petitioner agreed upon              
          substantially reduced deficiencies.3 In addition to reducing the            
          deficiencies, respondent waived all penalties.  Respondent                  
          refused to abate interest on the substantially reduced                      


               3 The parties have failed to provide the Court with the text           
          or terms of the agreement.  According to petitioner, respondent             
          in the notice of deficiency originally sought to assess                     
          deficiencies for 1992 and 1993 totaling approximately $20,000.              
          Respondent voluntarily reduced the deficiencies to approximately            
          $1,600 after respondent granted petitioner’s request for a new              
          audit and accepted petitioner’s documentation of most of his                
          deductions.  Because petitioner’s time to seek Tax Court review             
          of the notice of deficiency had expired by the time of his                  
          request for reconsideration, petitioner would have had to pay the           
          tax, file a claim for refund with respondent, and after denial              
          sue respondent for a refund if respondent had, in his discretion,           
          refused petitioner’s request for a new audit.  Petitioner shows             
          no appreciation for respondent’s twice granting petitioner’s                
          requests for reconsideration, or for voluntarily agreeing to                
          reduce the assessed deficiencies without first requiring payment.           





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