- 7 -
result, we held that respondent was not obliged to issue an FSAA
to Petito Corp. before issuing a notice of deficiency to
petitioner.
On January 2, 2001, petitioner moved the Court to reconsider
its opinion in Petito v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner averred
that he had obtained information from respondent (in a phone
conversation with an IRS customer service employee) that, despite
Petito Corp.’s submission of Forms 1120S for the years 1990,
1991, and 1992, respondent had always treated Petito Corp. as a
regular or C corporation. Petitioner asserted that the notice of
deficiency issued to him should be considered invalid inasmuch as
the adjustments therein should have been determined against
Petito Corp. as opposed to him. Respondent filed an objection to
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration asserting that Petito
Corp.’s status as an S corporation or a C corporation did not
affect the validity of the notice of deficiency issued to
petitioner.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was called for
hearing in New York, New York. During the hearing, counsel for
respondent conceded that respondent’s records indicated that,
despite Petito Corp.’s practice of submitting Forms 1120S,
respondent had treated Petito Corp. as a C corporation. The
Court received the testimony of David Messecca, the revenue agent
that prepared the notice of deficiency in question. Revenue
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011