Jennifer L. Rusley - Page 11




                                        - 11 -                                        
          original filing position.  She stated that the Form W-2 income              
          did not belong on line 7 and that the expenses were properly                
          reported on Schedule C.  On its face this position is confusing             
          and inconsistent.  Petitioner also stated in the second letter              
          that she would be forwarding to respondent a confirmation of her            
          duties from her employer.  Although petitioner obtained the third           
          letter that purported to confirm her employment and to support              
          her filing position, there is no evidence that respondent                   
          received this letter prior to the issuance of the notice of                 
          deficiency.1                                                                
               Moreover, even if respondent had received the third letter             
          before issuing the notice of deficiency, the third letter does              
          not provide persuasive support for petitioner’s contention.  The            
          third letter is written by a representative from Arch Wireless,             
          but petitioner’s tax return includes a Form W-2 from USA Mobile             
          as her employer.  The third letter merely states that petitioner            
          was an outside account executive employed by Arch Wireless for              
          part of 1998 and that her responsibilities included “outside                
          business to business sales and service for new and existing                 


               1  Respondent states in the objection to motion, filed Mar.            
          19, 2002, that the letters dated Jan. 11, 2001, and June 26,                
          2001, from officials of petitioner’s employer were first                    
          presented to a representative of respondent on Oct. 16, 2001.               
          Appeals Officer Elaine Rhoton did not recall receiving any                  
          documents from petitioner prior to her meeting with Mr. De                  
          Montbreun on Oct. 16, 2001.  The two letters were stapled                   
          together in the administrative file, and the Appeals Officer                
          believes that they both were received at the same time.                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011