- 25 -
date for the return of November 18, 1996. Petitioner offered a
Form 1040 with a date of "1-16-96" entered next to the
signatures. In addition, petitioner offered a copy of his check
to the IRS, bearing a date of "1-16-96". This copy had no bank
markings indicating it had been negotiated, which petitioner
explained was due to the fact that it was a copy of the check
made before mailing it to the IRS. Petitioner also produced a
copy of the negotiated version of the same check, yet this copy
bore a date of "11-16-96", consistent with a November 1996
filing.15 Moreover, petitioner produced a copy of a request for
an automatic 4-month extension of time for filing the 1995
15 As to the discrepancy in the "1-16-96" and "11-16-96"
dates on the two copies of the same check he wrote as payment of
his 1995 taxes, petitioner testified that the check bore the "1-
16-96" date when he mailed it to respondent, which implies that
someone at the IRS altered the check by adding the numeral "1" to
the month indicator in the date.
This claim arouses greater suspicion when considered in
light of the fact that petitioner is also claiming that someone
at the IRS altered the numeral "1" on another of his checks;
namely, the check for $1,776 intended as payment towards his 1997
taxes that was erroneously posted by respondent as a payment of
$11,776. That check is also in evidence and contains
inconsistent entries designating its amount; namely, a numeric
entry of "$1,1776.00" [sic] and a written entry of "One thousand
seven hundred seventy six" dollars.
The recurrent manipulation of the numeral "1" on
petitioner's checks undermines the credibility of both his claims
that IRS personnel altered his checks. We need not resolve the
dispute concerning the $1,776 check, however, given respondent's
concession that his effort to recover the erroneous 1997 refund
resulting from the incorrect posting of this check is barred by
sec. 6532(b). Nonetheless, one is left with the singular
sensation that petitioner's recurrent problems with the numeral
"1" are too similar to be explained by malfeasance on the part of
IRS employees.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011