- 13 -
dated October 25, 2002, to file a formal protest since “your
protest has not been completed in accordance with the guidelines
outlined in the enclosed Publication 5.” Petitioner did not
comply with this request.
Because the amounts of tax used in the 30-day letter,
Publication 5, and IRM part 8.6.1.1.4 are inconsistent with
section 601.105(d)(2), Statement of Procedural Rules, we must
decide whether petitioner’s compliance with the 30-day letter and
Publication 5 satisfies the statutory requirement to have
exhausted all administrative remedies. We note that the IRS has
no duty to comply with section 601.105, Statement of Procedural
Rules, or any other rules that do not have the force and effect
of law. See Luhring v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d 560, 563 (4th Cir.
1962) (finding section 601.105, Statement of Procedural Rules,
does not have the force and effect of law); see also Ward v.
Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1424, 1430-1431 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding
the IRS has no duty to comply with section 601.601(d), Statement
of Procedural Rules, because it does not have the force and
effect of law), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-570.
With this background in mind, we note respondent did issue a
30-day letter, and section 601.105(c)(2)(i), Statement of
Procedural Rules, requires a 30-day letter to provide a detailed
explanation of the available alternatives including consideration
of the case by an Appeals Office. Similarly, section
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011