- 34 -
The record establishes that respondent issued to petitioners
respective notices of deficiency relating to their taxable years
1996, 1997, and 19992 and that they did not file a petition with
the Court with respect to any of such notices. On the instant
2With respect to petitioners’ taxable year 1996, the
transcripts of account that a representative of respondent
prepared relating to that year reflected that respondent issued a
notice of deficiency to petitioners with respect to their taxable
year 1996. With respect to petitioners’ taxable year 1997, the
transcripts of account that a representative of respondent
prepared relating to that year did not reflect that respondent
issued a notice of deficiency to petitioners with respect to
their taxable year 1997. However, the revenue agent who
testified on behalf of respondent at the trial in this case
indicated that transcripts of account do not necessarily reflect
such information. Indeed, although the record in the instant
case contains a copy of the notice of deficiency that respondent
issued with respect to petitioners’ taxable year 1999, the
transcripts of account that a representative of respondent
prepared relating to that year did not reflect that respondent
issued such a notice to petitioners. The notice of determination
with respect to petitioners’ taxable years 1996, 1997, and 1999,
as well as the settlement officer’s history sheet or case
activity records relating to those years, reflected that
respondent issued respective notices of deficiency with respect
to those years. In this connection, it is noteworthy that, in
petitioners’ attachment to petitioners’ 1996 Form 12153 and
petitioners’ attachment to petitioners’ 1997 and 1999 Form 12153,
as well as in various letters described above that petitioners
sent to the IRS with respect to their taxable years 1996, 1997,
and 1999, petitioners did not complain that they did not receive
notices of deficiency with respect to 1996, 1997, and 1999.
Instead, they argued in those documents that they did not receive
valid notices of deficiency for any of those years because the
notices of deficiency that they received were not signed by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) or a properly
authorized delegate of the Commissioner. Finally, we note that
we did not find credible Mr. Frey’s testimony that he did not
receive notices of deficiency with respect to 1996, 1997, and
1999. Such testimony is inconsistent with other testimony of Mr.
Frey that he may have received such notices and is contrary to
other evidence in the record.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011