Thomas Francis Morris - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         
               Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for a                  
          deficiency in Federal income tax for the taxable year 1999 in the           
          amount of $12,410.  Following respondent’s concession that                  
          petitioner overpaid his 1999 tax by $5,783, the issue for                   
          decision is whether the overpayment is time barred by section               
          6511(b)(2).                                                                 
               Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so                
          found.  The stipulation of facts and exhibits are incorporated              
          herein by this reference.  At the time of filing the petition,              
          petitioner resided in Nashua, New Hampshire.                                
               During 1999 petitioner was employed by Alpha Processor, Inc.           
          and received salary in the amount of $63,139.  The salary was               
          subject to withholding in the amount of $15,127.  Petitioner did            
          not file a Federal income tax return for 1999.  By letter dated             
          December 1, 2003, respondent advised petitioner that respondent             
          had not received petitioner’s return and calculated a tax based             
          on information provided by third parties.  On March 12, 2004,               
          respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner                      
          determining a deficiency for the taxable year 1999.1  A timely              
          petition was filed.                                                         



               1  Respondent also issued a notice of deficiency dated Mar.            
          26, 2004.  The notice is a duplicate of the Mar. 12, 2004,                  
          notice.  It appears that the notice was issued in error, and in             
          any event a timely petition was filed in response to the March 12           
          notice, and accordingly the March 26 notice is of no consequence.           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011