- 15 -
301.7430-5(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. In the July 31 letter,
approximately a year and a half before respondent filed the
answer, petitioner alerted respondent to the possibility of an
error or delay in the assessment of his 1983 tax liability.
Petitioner argued that he had settled the taxable year 1983, and
petitioner enclosed copies of the settlement agreements.
Respondent does not dispute receiving the July 31 letter or
copies of the settlement agreements. Instead of considering the
effect of the settlement agreements on petitioner’s 1983 tax
liability and consulting the Internal Revenue Manual, respondent
brushed off petitioner’s settlement argument as petitioner’s
irrelevant “belief”.
At the time of the exchange with respondent regarding the
July 31 letter, petitioner was not represented by counsel, and
the record contains no evidence that petitioner had any legal
expertise. Nevertheless, petitioner provided respondent with the
factual information respondent needed to verify that respondent
delayed assessing petitioner’s 1983 interest liability.
Petitioner was entitled to expect that respondent would give due
consideration to petitioner’s claims.10
4. Conclusion
Respondent has not established that the position in the
10In a letter dated June 18, 2001, Appeals Officer Sivick
provided to petitioner a “Review of the Law and related
material”. The review contained references to secs. 6224(c) and
6229(a) and (b) but did not mention secs. 6229(f) or 6231(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011