Nicolas Charles Karkabe - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
               Petitioner filed a response to respondent’s motion (peti-              
          tioner’s response) in which petitioner stated in pertinent part:            
               1.   Petitioner has moved into negotiations for settle-                
                    ment through the IRS appeals office * * *                         
               2.   Petitioner is currently collecting information and                
                    documents to form a settlement and believes that                  
                    it will be possible to resolve the case without                   
                    the necessity of a trial.                                         
                        *     *     *     *     *     *     *                         
               4.   Petitioner requests the court grant time for the                  
                    disputing parties to come to an agreement by stay-                
                    ing the motion for judgment on the pleadings by an                
                    amount of time deemed appropriate by the court.                   
               Respondent filed a reply to petitioner’s response in which             
          respondent stated in pertinent part:                                        
                    5.   On March 1, 2007, respondent's counsel con-                  
               tacted appeals office to determine the status of this                  
               case which is currently under appeals jurisdiction.                    
                    6.   The appeals officer assigned to this case                    
               indicated that he spoke with petitioner regarding the                  
               issues in this case on March 1, 2007.  Petitioner does                 
               not contest that he received wage income in the amount                 
               of $34,104.00 from California Food Plan, Inc., however                 
               he now alleges that he is entitled to a Schedule A                     
               deduction for unreimbursed employee expenses.                          
                    7.   Petitioner further indicated that he would                   
               provide a memorandum outlining his claimed expenses to                 
               respondent’s appeals office during the week of March 5,                
               2007.                                                                  
                    8.   On March 8, 2007, respondent’s appeals offi-                 
               cer informed the undersigned that petitioner has not                   
               provided any information and/or documentary evidence to                
               support his alleged Schedule A deduction for                           
               unreimbursed employee expenses in taxable year 2003.                   
               [Reproduced literally.]                                                








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007