James L. and Sherri R. Goertler - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
                    If we don’t hear from you within 30 days from the                 
               date of this letter, we will send you a Notice of                      
               Deficiency * * * .                                                     
          Petitioners did not respond to respondent’s September 5, 2000,              
          letter within the 30-day period prescribed therein.                         
               By notice of deficiency dated November 29, 2000, respondent            
          determined a deficiency in tax with respect to petitioners for              
          1998 in the amount of $3,068.  That deficiency was attributable             
          entirely to respondent’s disallowance of the section 151(c)                 
          deductions.4                                                                
               On February 28, 2001, petitioners filed the petition,                  
          assigning error to respondent’s determination.  Although Mr.                
          Austen, petitioners’ C.P.A., apparently prepared and mailed the             
          petition, the petition does not identify Mr. Austen or anyone               
          else as representing petitioners, nor did Mr. Austen or anyone              
          else subsequently enter an appearance on behalf of petitioners.5            
          On an unspecified date, Mr. Austen sent a copy of the petition to           
          the examiner assigned to the case at the Ogden Customer Service             
          Center (the Ogden examiner), along with the following handwritten           
          note:  “Dear Mr. Parizek:  I ran out of time & filed a petition             
          to Tax Court.  If we can resolve the problem thru you great –               


               4  Although respondent also disallowed the child tax credits           
          that petitioners had claimed for two of the children, such                  
          disallowance was not reflected in respondent’s computation of               
          petitioners’ corrected tax liability.                                       
               5  We note that Mr. Austen is not authorized to practice               
          before this Court.                                                          




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011