James Edward Crawford - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          Petitioner was issued a refund of $6,330 plus interest of $183.31           
          for a total of $6,513.31.                                                   
               In a letter dated July 17, 1984, the Internal Revenue                  
          Service (IRS) notified petitioner that for tax year 1983 First              
          Energy was an abusive tax shelter the deductions from or credits            
          for which "are not allowable".  On November 4, 1986, the IRS sent           
          petitioner's attorney a settlement offer regarding First Energy.            
          After no response was received, the IRS issued a notice of                  
          deficiency dated July 13, 1987, determining deficiencies in                 
          petitioners’ Federal income taxes for 1980 and 1983 in the                  
          amounts of $6,330 and $5,717, respectively, and additions to tax            
          for 1980 in the amounts of $316.50 and $1,899 under sections                
          6653(a) and 6659, respectively.  The underpayment of tax for 1980           
          was determined to be a substantial underpayment attributable to a           
          tax motivated transaction under section 6621(c).                            
               Petitioner filed a petition with the Court on August 17,               
          1987, for a redetermination of the deficiencies.  After a timely            
          answer was filed, respondent, on October 15, 1987, sent                     
          petitioner's case to the Appeals Office to give petitioner                  
          another opportunity to accept the "national" settlement offer.              
          On January 13, 1988, respondent's counsel wrote to petitioner's             
          counsel inquiring "whether you intend to litigate all issues, or            
          only the penalty issues, and whether you will agree to a test               
          case approach."  In a letter dated March 10, 1988, petitioner               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011