- 11 -
Respondent, in turn, contends that petitioners failed to
respond to TCO Harris’s requests for information in connection
with the examination of their 2002 return. As a result, the IRS
sent to petitioners a 30-day letter dated September 14, 2004,
notifying petitioners that they should request a conference with
an Appeals officer if they did not agree with the proposed
adjustments to their return.
Petitioners also rely on Minahan v. Commissioner, 88 T.C.
492, 502-503 (1987), to argue that they fall within the purview
of the exception under section 301.7430-1(f)(2), Proced. & Admin.
Regs. In Minahan, however, the taxpayers did not receive a 30-
day letter. Minahan v. Commissioner, supra at 502. Petitioners
do not argue that they did not receive a 30-day letter from
respondent. Regardless of the letter from the Appeals Office
dated May 12, 2005, the 30-day letter clearly gave petitioners an
opportunity to seek an Appeals Office conference prior to the
issuance of the notice of deficiency. Therefore, the exception
under section 301.7430-1(f)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs., does not
apply.
Petitioners’ meetings with an Appeals officer, upon
receiving the statutory notice and after filing a petition with
the Court, does not satisfy the exhaustion of administrative
remedies requirement. See Polyco, Inc. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011