Larry J. and Patricia A. Sumrall - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          finding, and we think it fairly reflects the testimony of Revenue           
          Agent Stufflebeam and Mr. Barker.  The proposed finding is:                 
               Mr. Barker said that based on the cost of goods sold                   
               used in the criminal case for Mr. Sumrall, the                         
               petitioners would have net operating loss carrybacks in                
               later years.  Mr. Stufflebeam told Mr. Barker that he                  
               could complete the audit in 60 to 90 days if he could                  
               get the additional requested documents and the returns                 
               for later years.                                                       
               Put simply, we think that Mr. Barker told Revenue Agent                
          Stufflebeam that, based on information gathered during the                  
          criminal investigation, petitioners expected to report losses for           
          subsequent years that would carry back and reduce petitioners’              
          income for one or more of the audit years.  Petitioners may,                
          thus, have asserted a right to a refund.  Nevertheless, Revenue             
          Agent Stufflebeam was examining petitioners’ returns for 1987               
          through 1991, petitioners had not yet filed their returns for               
          1992 and 1993 (or any amended returns for any year under                    
          examination), and Revenue Agent Stufflebeam told Mr. Barker that            
          he would consider any carrybacks resulting from losses when he              
          received returns showing such losses.                                       
               To make an informal claim for refund, a taxpayer not only              
          must assert his right to a refund for a year, but he must                   
          describe the legal and factual basis of the claim.  New England             
          Elec. Sys. v. United States, supra.  Petitioners have not shown             
          that they adequately described the factual basis of their claim             
          to Revenue Agent Stufflebeam.  Revenue Agent Stufflebeam                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011