- 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