Albert James Lawless - Page 4

                                        - 3 -                                         
               At the time that the petition was filed, petitioner resided            
          in Boulder, Colorado.                                                       
               For the taxable year 1998, petitioner received an extension            
          of time to file his Federal income tax return (return) by August            
          15, 1999.  Petitioner did not file a return by that date.                   
               On December 9, 2002, respondent prepared a substitute return           
          for petitioner’s 1998 taxable year after determining that                   
          petitioner failed to file a return for 1998.  In the spring of              
          2003, respondent’s Memphis Service Center contacted petitioner              
          requesting that he file a 1998 return.                                      
               In response, petitioner mailed to respondent a purported               
          copy of his 1998 return, bearing his and his wife’s signatures,             
          dated September 3, 1999.  On July 10, 2003, respondent’s Memphis            
          Service Center received and filed this return as petitioner’s               
          1998 return.  On the return, petitioner claimed a refund of $87,            
          but he did not receive a refund check, nor did he contact                   
          respondent about such refund.  On the top of the return,                    
          petitioner handwrote, “DO NOT FILE - copy of previous return”.              
               Petitioner filed his individual Colorado State income tax              
          return for 1998 on July 2, 2003.                                            
               On August 1, 2003, respondent issued to petitioner a notice            
          of deficiency for 1998.4                                                    

               4  Apparently, respondent issued the notice of deficiency              
          based on the substitute return although respondent’s Memphis                
                                                             (continued...)           





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011