- 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