Stan D. Kaye - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          liability for the unpaid 1995 tax balance was assessed and on               
          June 10, 1996, respondent made notice and demand on petitioner to           
          pay his outstanding 1995 income tax liability.  On April 15,                
          1997, and April 15, 1998, petitioner filed his 1996 and 1997                
          income tax returns on each of which he entered zeros in all                 
          pertinent boxes for the reporting of income.                                
               On April 22, 1998, respondent mailed a Notice of Deficiency            
          to petitioner determining a $16,402 income tax deficiency for               
          1996, based on petitioner’s Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, and           
          Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement             
          or Profit Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc.,                   
          reflecting income from third-party sources.  Respondent also                
          determined a $3,280.40 penalty under section 6662(a) for                    
          petitioner’s 1996 tax year.  Petitioner acknowledged receipt of             
          the deficiency notice in a July 18, 1998, letter to respondent              
          and, among other similar protester statements, indicated, as                
          follows:                                                                    
               I have attached to this letter an excerpt from the                     
               Supreme Court decision FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORP. v                  
               A.A. MERRILL, 332 U.S. 380.  Note that the Court held                  
               in that case that:                                                     
                    Anyone entering into an arrangement with the                      
                    government takes a risk of having accurately                      
                    ascertained that he who purports to act for                       
                    the government stays within the bounds of his                     
                    authority, even though the agent himself may                      
                    be unaware of the limitations upon his                            
                    authority. (emphasis added)                                       







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

Last modified: May 25, 2011