Michael J. Roberts - Page 10




                                        - 10 -                                         
                    In May of 1994 the Respondent sent a Notice to the                 
               Petitioner who tried to come up with extra monies to                    
               hire experts to help with the demands of the                            
               Respondent.  By July 1994, two different experts                        
               assisted the Petitioner in preparing answers to the                     
               Respondent’s demand.  The information used by the                       
               experts in preparing the Petitioner’s U.S. Individual                   
               Income Tax Returns for the three years in dispute, came                 
               from the IRS’s own Income Tax Examination Changes.  The                 
               experts advised the Petitioner of deductions that the                   
               Petitioner should claim and the experts assisted the                    
               Petitioner in estimating deductions which were reported                 
               on Schedule C for each of the years in dispute.  The                    
               Petitioner hired tax preparers who advised to claim                     
               that the Petitioner did work “. . . just to get the IRS                 
               off his back.”  They scared teh [sic] Petitioner into                   
               filing these returns.                                                   
               At trial, petitioner was questioned on several occasions                
          regarding this issue.  An early exchange went as follows:                    
                    MR. ROBERTS:  What I’m challenging is they said                    
               that I had a business.  I never had any business.  And                  
               they based my income on my address, which I live in a                   
               very low-income place.  Just because it happened to be                  
               in Newport Beach didn’t--you know, which I don’t think                  
               they ever checked out or anything.  And these are the                   
               things I’m disputing.                                                   
                    So they gave me like forty some thousand dollars                   
               extra income, which--                                                   
                    THE COURT:  Well, I know--I hear what you’re                       
               saying.  The trouble is when Congress passed this law                   
               in ’98 to--to make it possible to come in and challenge                 
               the propriety of liens and levies, they put in that law                 
               you can’t attack the underlying tax if you’ve already                   
               had a chance to do so and you didn’t do it, and that’s-                 
               -that’s where your case falls down here. You got a                      
               deficiency notice.  You didn’t respond to it.                           
                    MR. ROBERTS:  I’m not sure--excuse me.  I’m not                    
               sure if I ever got one because--I mean, not that I                      
               recall.  I mean, this is back in ’94, I believe.                        
          Later a similar discussion ensued:                                           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011