A. Wayne and Linda D. Doudney - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
               On December 9, 2004, respondent scheduled a Branerton                  
          conference with petitioner regarding respondent’s adjustments to            
          petitioners’ 1999 and 2000 amended returns.  See Branerton Corp.            
          v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974).  Petitioner was unable to              
          attend the meeting, but his attorney-in-fact, Mr. Mattatall,                
          attended in his place.7  At the meeting, Mr. Mattatall produced             
          four “Affidavits of Fact” that summarily declared, among other              
          things, that all of the claimed losses, deductions, and                     

               7At the time of this trial, Mr. Mattatall had been enjoined            
          by the United States from directly or indirectly “acting as a               
          return preparer or assisting in or directing the preparation of             
          federal tax returns for any person or entity other than himself,            
          or further appearing as a representative on behalf of any person            
          or organization whose tax liabilities [are] under examination by            
          the IRS.”  United States v. Mattatall, No. CV 03-07016 DDP                  
          (PJWx), at 6 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2004) (order granting                     
          plaintiff’s motion for contempt and second amended injunction of            
          which we take judicial notice pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201).  In           
          a footnote to the order, the U.S. District Court for the Central            
          District of California provided the following pertinent                     
          explanation:                                                                
               In support of its position, the Government attaches the                
               transcript of an interview between the IRS and a                       
               taxpayer who brought Mattatall along as his return                     
               preparer and representative.  At the interview,                        
               [Mattatall] insisted that the taxpayer could choose to                 
               submit an affidavit that his tax return was correct,                   
               and that regardless of the IRS’s request for documents                 
               or other information, the affidavit is all that the                    
               taxpayer need provide.  The Government argues that                     
               Mattatall’s position is frivolous, and the Court                       
               agrees.  Section 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code                     
               authorizes the IRS to examine “any books, papers,                      
               records, or other data” which “may be relevant” to an                  
               inquiry into “the correctness of any [tax] return.”  26                
               U.S.C. �7602(a)(1).  [Mattatall’s] assertion that an                   
               affidavit is sufficient is unfounded.                                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011