- 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