Douglas Leroy and Nancy Helene Maxfield - Page 8




                                        - 7 -                                         
          aggressively asserting their rights in dealings with respondent.            
          See Butti v. Commissioner, supra.                                           
               Petitioners have litigated in this Court previously.  In               
          Maxfield v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-27,                     
          petitioners challenged respondent’s deficiency determinations for           
          the taxable years 2000 and 2001.  This supports petitioners’                
          contention that they always reply to respondent’s notices and               
          letters.                                                                    
               Petitioners also have a long history of dealing with                   
          respondent.  According to petitioners, respondent has examined at           
          least nine of their tax returns.  The parties acknowledge that              
          the examination of petitioners’ 1999 return was particularly                
          contentious.  For example, petitioners sent letters to the                  
          Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the National Taxpayer                  
          Advocate complaining about the examination.  One letter states in           
          part:  “On 14 February 2002 * * * [an Internal Revenue Service              
          agent] came out to my home and conducted an audit of my 1999 tax            
          return.  I produced all my 1999 tax records and for 9 and ½ hours           
          we went through the audit.  I enjoyed it, it was fun.”  While the           
          sarcasm in the letter is evident, we have no doubt that                     
          petitioner derives a sense of satisfaction from challenging                 
          respondent.                                                                 
               Petitioners ultimately asked respondent to close the                   
          examination and issue a notice of deficiency.  After respondent             







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

Last modified: November 10, 2007