- 7 -
position from which a taxpayer may appeal to this Court.
Accordingly, we hold that the deficiency notice is adequate and
valid.
Petitioners’ second argument is that respondent is limited
to assessing or collecting the $1,153.23 amount stated on the
first page of the 30-day transmittal letter. In that regard,
petitioners correctly point out that respondent stated, albeit
erroneously, that $1,153.23 was the liability that resulted from
the $8,448 correction to their claimed contribution deduction.
In addition, petitioners make the point that they, in reliance on
respondent’s statement, paid the $1,153.23 amount. Those events,
contend petitioners, bind the parties to the $1,153.23.
Respondent agrees with petitioners’ characterization of the
circumstances and counters that those circumstances do not rise
to the level of a binding agreement or form the basis for an
estoppel. Respondent makes clear that in response to
petitioners’ payment of the $1,153.23, he sent a letter followed
by a deficiency notice advising that petitioners’ income tax
deficiency was $2,327.40. Respondent also points out that the
Form 4549, forwarded with the 30-day letter and seeking
petitioners’ consent to the tax liability, was not executed or
returned by petitioners.
We agree with respondent that payment of the $1,153.23 set
forth in the 30-day letter does not, by itself, rise to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011