-3-
Respondent acknowledges that petitioner was entitled to and
should have been given a Hearing. All the same, respondent
argues, the Court has jurisdiction to decide this case.
Respondent argues that respondent’s failure to grant petitioner’s
timely request for a Hearing was harmless error because
petitioner was offered and attended an “equivalent hearing” under
section 301.6330-1(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs. (equivalent
hearing), and received a decision letter (decision letter) as to
the equivalent hearing.
We hold that we have jurisdiction. Also, we shall grant
respondent’s motion for summary judgment, and we shall impose a
$2,500 penalty against petitioner. Unless otherwise noted,
section references are to the applicable versions of the Internal
Revenue Code. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
Background
A. Income Tax Returns for 1990, 1991, and 1992
Petitioner and his wife, Lorraine Craig (Ms. Craig), did not
file timely Federal income tax returns for 1990 and 1991. On
February 18, 1993, respondent prepared and filed substitutes for
returns for those years under section 6020. In preparing the
substitutes for returns, respondent relied on information
2(...continued)
266 (1998); 1998-3 C.B. 747, 1020. We refer to it as a
“Hearing”.
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