Images in Motion of El Paso, Inc. - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          small case request for an Appeals Office conference Publication 5           
          states that a taxpayer must send a letter in which it identifies            
          the IRS’s proposed changes that the taxpayer disagrees with and             
          the reasons for disagreement.                                               
               Finally, Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) part 8.6.1.1.4(1)               
          (Dec. 13, 1999), Written Protests and “Small Case Requests” in              
          Unagreed Cases, states:  “Appeals will consider matters under its           
          small case request procedures if the total amount for any tax               
          period is not more than $25,000.”  The small case request                   
          requirements under the IRM are virtually identical to those                 
          stated in Publication 5.  Unlike a written request for a small              
          case, a written protest is “required to obtain Appeals                      
          consideration if the total amount for any tax period is more than           
          $25,000.”  IRM pt. 8.6.l.1.4(2) (Dec. 13, 1999).  A written                 
          protest must include, among other things, “the facts supporting             
          the taxpayer’s position on any disagreed issue, and the law or              
          authority, if any, on which the taxpayer relies.”  IRM pt.                  
          8.6.1.1.4(2) (Dec. 13, 1999).                                               
               In this case, for each tax period at issue the proposed                
          change was less than $25,000.  Having reviewed petitioner’s                 
          letter dated October 24, 2002, we find that it complied with the            
          small case request requirements set forth in the 30-day letter,             
          Publication 5, and the IRM.  Respondent did not grant                       
          petitioner’s request but instead directed petitioner, in a letter           






Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011