- 15 -
Office conference. Accordingly, we hold petitioner reasonably
attempted to exhaust the administrative remedies available.
Our analysis is not in conflict with the general rule that
“taxpayers rely on * * * [IRS] publications at their peril.”
Miller v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 184, 195 (2000), affd. on other
grounds sub nom. Lovejoy v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 1208 (10th
Cir. 2002); see Carpenter v. United States, 495 F.2d 175 (5th
Cir. 1964). This rule was adopted since publications are not
binding on the Government, nor can they change the plain meaning
of a statute. See, e.g., Miller v. Commissioner, supra at 195.
Petitioner satisfied the steps outlined by respondent’s
correspondence, but it was not given an Appeals Office
conference, as discussed in further detail infra. Thus, there is
no statutory conflict.
Likewise, this case is distinguishable from Haas &
Associates Accountancy Corp. v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 48 (2001),
affd. 55 Fed. Appx. 476 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner, unlike the
taxpayers in Haas Associates Accountancy Corp., filed a written
request for an Appeals Office conference in accordance with the
30-day letter and Publication 5. Moreover, once this case was
forward to the Appeals Office, after being docketed with the
Court, petitioner cooperated with the Appeals Office, unlike the
taxpayers in Haas Associates Accountancy Corp. Given these
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011