Robert C. McKee and Valery W. McKee - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          In the letter, respondent provided the following explanation:               
               Since the statute of limitations will expire for the                   
               1999 year on April 15, we cannot issue a 30 day letter                 
               that would allow you to file a protest to have your                    
               case heard by our Appeals division.  We send [sic] you                 
               a statute extension earlier, but since you did not sign                
               and return the extension[,] April 15 remains the                       
               statute date.  If your case is unagreed, we will send                  
               you a statutory notice of deficiency.  This is a                       
               certified letter than [sic] will allow you to file a                   
               petition to have your case heard in Tax Court.  * * *                  
          Respondent also sent a copy of the Form 4549A and a brief cover             
          letter dated January 17, 2003, to petitioners’ attorney, Donald             
          L. Feurzeig.                                                                
               In a notice of deficiency dated March 10, 2003 (the notice),           
          respondent determined the following deficiencies with respect to            
          petitioners’ income tax:                                                    
                         Year           Deficiency                                    
                         1999           $42,947                                       
                         2000           73,891                                        
                         2001           47,927                                        
          The notice contained the following errors:  (1) An incomplete               
          explanation of Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss,                    
          adjustments, (2) an alternative minimum tax computational error             
          twice disallowing petitioners’ 1999 net operating loss (NOL), and           
          (3) missing computations that would have explained the                      
          adjustments to petitioners’ 1999 NOL.                                       
               On March 13, 2003, petitioners filed a petition with this              
          Court contesting respondent’s determinations.  On April 24, 2003,           
          respondent filed an answer.  Soon thereafter, in a letter dated             





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011