- 9 -
transcript: (1) Code 494, “90 Day Statutory Notice of Deficiency
Issued”, processing date: Nov. 16, 2004, and (2) code 495, “90
Day Notice Processed in Error”, processing date: Mar. 14, 2005.
Petitioner has failed to provide us with a code book to interpret
those entries. Nevertheless, petitioner argues that the purpose
of the second entry “is patently clear – the purported notice of
deficiency was withdrawn because it was ‘processed in error’”.
Respondent argues that petitioner misunderstands the coded
entries and their shorthand explanations. Respondent argues:
The Transaction Code Pocket Guide, Document 11734 (Rev.
6-2004), more fully describes TC 495 as “Closure of TC
4942 or correction of TC 494 processed in error.”
Hence, TC 495 is not used solely to withdraw a notice
processed in error. Indeed, IRM sec. 4.19.2.2.15(3)(b)
instructs tax examiners to utilize TC 495 to reverse TC
494 prior to routing newly docketed Tax Court cases to
the Appeals Function. Thus, the presence of TC 495
does not mean that a notice of deficiency has been
withdrawn.
2 Transaction Code 494 denotes the issuance of a
notice of deficiency. See Transactions Code Pocket
Guide, Document 11734 (Rev. 6-2004).
We accept that an IMF contains coded information. Without
evidence as to the meaning of that information, however, we are
unable to find that the entry petitioner relies on indicates that
the notice was withdrawn. Petitioner bears the burden of proof.
See Rule 142(a). Petitioner declined to offer any evidence.
Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proving that the
notice was withdrawn.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007