- 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