Casey A. Roginiel - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          administrative remedies.  An award for litigation costs shall not           
          be made unless the taxpayer has exhausted the administrative                
          remedies available within the Internal Revenue Service.  Sec.               
          7430(b)(1); sec. 301.7430-1(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.  We               
          find that petitioner has not met this requirement.  The 30-day              
          letter sent to petitioner specifically provided that if                     
          petitioner disagreed with respondent’s findings, petitioner had             
          “the right to file an administrative appeal”.  Prior to filing              
          his petition in the Tax Court, petitioner never requested or                
          participated in a conference with the Appeals Office with respect           
          to the 1999 taxable year, although such a conference was                    
          available.  Section 301.7430-1(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.,               
          provides that, where a conference with the Appeals Office is                
          available, administrative remedies are exhausted when the                   
          taxpayer (1) participated in a conference with the Appeals Office           
          before petitioning this Court, or (2) prior to the issuance of              
          the notice of deficiency, requested such a conference and no such           
          conference was granted.  Haas & Associates Accountancy Corp. v.             
          Commissioner, 117 T.C. 48, 57-59 (2001); Swanagan v.                        
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-294; Patel v. Commissioner, T.C.              
          Memo. 1998-306; Jacoby v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-384.                
               Because petitioner did not exhaust his administrative                  
          remedies, we have no choice but to rule for respondent.  Thus, we           
          find no reason to delve into the other requirements.  We have               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011