James Dirks - Page 12

                                        -12-                                          
               Although we find petitioner to have been credible when he              
          testified as to his intent to meet the 60-day rule, we do not               
          find likewise as to his testimony concerning the letter.  The               
          parties stipulated that Exhibit 1-J was a copy of the “federal              
          income tax return filed by petitioner for 2000" and that return             
          contained neither the letter nor any mention thereof.  We decline           
          on the basis of the record at hand to make petitioner’s desired             
          finding that the letter was the enclosed “IRA Documentation” that           
          respondent’s service center returned to him on October 1, 2001,             
          with correspondence.  The correspondence states specifically that           
          it relates to petitioner’s “inquiry of Aug. 27, 2001" and, with             
          the exception of a reference to December 31, 2000, as that of the           
          tax period involved, contains no reference to petitioner’s 2000             
          tax return that was received by respondent on August 17, 2001.              
          We sustain respondent’s determination as to the accuracy-related            
          penalty under section 6662(a) and (d).                                      
               All arguments made by the parties have been considered, and            
          those arguments not discussed herein have been found to be                  
          without merit.  Accordingly,                                                


                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             for respondent.                          









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

Last modified: May 25, 2011