- 7 -
First Energy deductions were abusive "BEFORE they allegedly sent
me the check in question." He acknowledged receiving a document
"indicating that the check was mailed to me on July 18, 1984."
But he questioned "why did the IRS send me a refund check on July
18, 1984 after telling me on July 17, 1984 that I was not
entitled to that refund?" Petitioner also took the position that
just because the check was sent to him and cashed did not mean
that he was the one who cashed it. Respondent's counsel advised
petitioner in a follow-up letter that the issue of his receipt of
the refund check was not an issue triable in his Tax Court case.
On December 16, 1991, the Court granted a motion by
respondent's counsel to change place of trial to Tampa, Florida.
In a letter dated February 10, 1993, respondent's counsel located
in Jacksonville, Florida, requested petitioner's consideration of
a proposed stipulation of facts and a request for documents,
including petitioner's bank statements for the period July
through December 1984. Respondent's counsel sent petitioner a
followup request for bank statements on April 2, 1993.
Respondent, on April 6, 1993, sent to the Court a trial
memorandum for petitioner's case set on the April 26, 1993, trial
calendar in Tampa, Florida. The memorandum frames the issue for
trial as whether petitioner received the 1980 refund of $6,330 he
claimed on Form 1045, recognizing Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
527, 531-532 (1985) as authority for the Court’s having
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011