- 5 - November of 1995, AO Rawley sent the proposed notices of deficiency to respondent’s District Counsel for review because he viewed the issue involved as a “novel one”. On December 13, 1995, respondent’s District Counsel advised against issuing the proposed notices of deficiency and recommended that the cases be returned to respondent’s Examination Division for further factual development. On December 26, 1995, AO Rawley sent a Form 3100, Appeals Division Feedback Report and Transmittal Memorandum, to the District Director in which the Appeals Office released jurisdiction over the Rathbuns’ cases. The form included the following explanation: We were unable to resolve these two cases, and were prepared to issue Notices of Deficiency based on the examiner’s recommendation * * *. However, at our request Counsel reviewed the proposed notices; and they have strongly recommended that additional development be done by the Examination Division prior to issuance * * *. We are now concluding our consideration and releasing jurisdiction of these two cases so that the recommended development activity may be considered. We trust that you will take whatever action you consider appropriate, including the issuance of Notices of Deficiency at such time as you consider proper. On the same day, December 26, 1995, Mr. Rawley sent a letter (December 1995 letter) to the Rathbuns’ attorney that stated: Dear Mr. Braley: We have completed our consideration of the two cases captioned above; and we are sorry that we were unable to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution. We have returned the cases to the District Director for whatever action he deems appropriate.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011