- 12 -
As previously stated (see supra B), by letter dated May 21,
1999, respondent‘s Chief of the Examination Branch in the Ogden,
Utah Service Center advised petitioner and his wife that “the
information you sent”; i.e., their Form 1040 for 1998, “is
frivolous and your position has no basis in law.” Also as
previously stated (see supra B), by letter dated June 19, 1999,
petitioner replied to the foregoing letter. Although
petitioner’s letter was much lengthier than his previously
described letter dated January 7, 2000 (see supra A), the tenor
of the two letters was the same.
By notice dated February 25, 2000, respondent determined a
deficiency in the Federal income tax of petitioner and his wife
for 1998 in the amount of $16,174, together with an accuracy-
related penalty under section 6662(a) and (b)(1) in the amount of
$3,830.06.7 No petition for redetermination was filed with the
Court. See sec. 6213(a). Accordingly, on August 7, 2000,
7 The deficiency in income tax was based on respondent’s
determination that petitioner and his wife received but failed to
report: (1) Wages in the amount of $14,466 from Lucky Stores, and
(2) a capital gain in the amount of $83,550. In determining the
deficiency, it would appear that respondent failed to consider
the Form W-2 issued by Palace Station Hotel and Casino reporting
the payment of wages to petitioner in the amount of $18,823.15,
as discussed in the text. If this were the case, the deficiency
in income tax and the accuracy-related penalty were understated.
We note that respondent has credited petitioner and his wife
for the amount withheld from wages insofar as their ultimate tax
liability is concerned. However, we note further that the
determination of a statutory deficiency does not take such amount
into account. See sec. 6211(b)(1).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011