- 12 -
trial, the letter, by itself, does not provide the minimum
information necessary to apprise respondent of the basis of
petitioner’s claim.8 The April 1996 letter contains no more than
an unsupported assertion by petitioner and his wife that they
believed they were entitled to refunds for 1993 and 1994. A
writing evaluated with reference to its surrounding circumstances
that provides no information about the basis of a taxpayer’s
refund claim does not qualify as an informal refund claim because
it does not give the Commissioner “notice fairly advising the
Commissioner of the nature of the taxpayer’s claim”. United
States v. Kales, supra at 194.
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that he is entitled
to a refund of the overpayments he claims for 1993 and 1994.
Rule 142(a)(1). Because petitioner failed to prove that he made
an informal refund claim and because the record establishes that
8Petitioner did not argue that the April 1996 letter coupled
with his 1992 tax return constituted his informal refund claim.
Even if petitioner had made such an argument, the record
foreclosed any evaluation of the argument. Neither petitioner
nor respondent introduced the 1992 return into evidence, and
petitioner did not testify as to the contents of the 1992 return.
Without the 1992 return or some testimony regarding its contents
in the record, we simply cannot evaluate whether the facts giving
rise to the 1992 overpayment, which respondent refunded, were
substantially similar to the facts generating the overpayments
for 1993 and 1994. The only facts we can fairly find on this
record are that the April 1996 letter provided notice to
respondent that petitioner felt he was entitled to a refund for
1993 and 1994 and that the letter and the surrounding
circumstances did not adequately notify respondent of the basis
of the claim. See BCS Fin. Corp. v. United States, 118 F.3d 522,
524-525 (7th Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011