- 6 -
petitioner that the Appeals Office hearing was scheduled for
November 27, 2001. This letter was not returned.
Cody’s October 18 and 31 letters stated identically that
because petitioner had failed to file a petition in the Tax Court
challenging the notice of deficiency, he had “no further judicial
review of the items in the notice of deficiency”. Cody
indicated, however, that she would informally review petitioner’s
request at the hearing. Petitioner did not appear for the
scheduled Appeals Office hearing. Cody was unsuccessful in
reaching petitioner at the telephone number shown on petitioner’s
Form 12153.
On December 13, 2001, respondent sent petitioner
substantially identical notices of determination to the Parker
Lane #1 address and the Parker Lane #11 address.6 Petitioner
admits receiving both transmittals.
The notices of determination correctly state the tax year in
question as being 1992. Identical attachments to each notice of
determination describe the issue as relating to petitioner’s 1992
tax year, but in discussing verification of legal and procedural
requirements, each attachment incorrectly refers twice to
petitioner’s 1998 tax year and once to petitioner’s 1998 account.
6 The only differences between the two notices of
determination, apart from petitioner’s address, is that they
(appropriately) list different certified mail numbers and appear
to bear nonidentical original signatures by “J.T. Benton, Team
Manager”.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011