John O. Green - Page 9




                                        - 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          deficiency was withdrawn because it was ‘processed in error’”.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               withdrawn.                                                             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          the notice was withdrawn.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