Michael O'Keefe Sowell - Page 4

                                        - 3 -                                         

          notification gave the basis for the proposed changes and informed           
          petitioner of his appeal rights.  Petitioner did not avail                  
          himself of these available administrative remedies, nor did he              
          otherwise respond to the notification.  A notice of deficiency              
          was issued on November 29, 2000.                                            
               Thereafter, petitioner timely petitioned this Court, denying           
          he had ever gambled at Gulf Greyhound Park.  Petitioner averred             
          that he was from California and had formerly been employed by               
          Gulf Greyhound Park.  He left Texas in December 1997.  After                
          receiving the notification from respondent, petitioner returned             
          to Texas to try to resolve the problem but claims he was harassed           
          by Gulf Greyhound Park security personnel and the Hitchcock                 
          Police Department and then arrested.                                        
               Following the petition to this Court, the case was referred            
          to respondent’s Appeals Office.  The Appeals officer investigated           
          petitioner’s explanation by obtaining copies of Forms W-2G and              
          video surveillance footage of the individual who placed the bets            
          at issue from Gulf Greyhound Park.  Respondent’s Appeals Office             
          then determined that the evidence was not sufficient to establish           
          that petitioner received the gambling winnings at issue.                    
          Respondent offered petitioner a complete concession of the                  
          deficiency on July 25, 2001.  Petitioner rejected the offer.3               

          3    Respondent stated that petitioner’s refusal was based on the           

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011