- 8 -
respondent refunded $1,472 based upon petitioners’ underlying
error, respondent was correct in subsequently determining a $986
deficiency.2
In addition to the aforementioned claims, petitioners argued
at trial that respondent engaged in a “slip shod” method of
examination, sending “four” notices of deficiency to petitioners,
and giving petitioners only “three days” to file their petition
with the Court. While we acknowledge petitioners’ frustration
and confusion, including their receipt of three separate proposed
change letters, we cannot find that respondent acted improperly.
Petitioners received only one notice of deficiency, dated August
30, 2004, that clearly put them on notice that the last date on
which they could file a petition with this Court was November 29,
2004.
In summary, we find that line 20b of petitioners’ 2002
return should be $24,329, an amount to which all parties agree,
and that because petitioners were awarded a refund greater than
their income tax liability, they are not entitled to any
overpayment pursuant to Rule 55.
2 In the June 16 letter, respondent redetermined
petitioners’ adjusted gross income as $95,005. The reason for
this adjustment was that petitioners had reported the same
amount--$24,328.70--on both lines 20a and 20b of their 2002
return. Accordingly, when respondent reduced the line 20a amount
by 15 percent to reflect the taxable portion thereof, the amount
of adjusted gross income was also reduced to $95,005.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011