George E. Harp - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
               On November 22, 2003, respondent issued petitioner a notice            
          of deficiency, which petitioner received.  Respondent determined            
          the following deficiencies in Federal income tax, additions to              
          tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file returns,            
          and penalties under section 6663 for civil tax fraud:                       

          Year       Tax            Additions to tax  Penalties                       
                                    Sec. 6651(a)(1)   Sec. 6663                       
          1995      $9,158          $2,290            $6,869                          
          1996      9,496           2,374             7,122                           
          1997      5,033           1,258             3,775                           
          1998      3,245           811               2,434                           
          1999      1,666           417               1,250                           
          2000      3,544           886               2,658                           

          Petitioner did not file a petition with this Court in response to           
          the notice of deficiency.                                                   
               On March 22, 2004, respondent assessed the tax due, the                
          additions to tax, and the penalties for the years at issue.  On             
          the same day, respondent issued petitioner a notice of balance              
          due and demand for payment.                                                 



               2(...continued)                                                        
          petitioner requested to cross-examine the parties who submitted             
          documentation in response to the summonses.  Respondent denied              
          petitioner’s request.  Respondent also denied petitioner’s                  
          request that the examining officer submit a request for technical           
          advice regarding the cross-examination issue to respondent’s                
          National Office.                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007