Thomas J. and Bonnie F. Ratke - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
          This memorandum, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Welhaf            
          memorandum, is summarized by respondent as follows:2                        
                    This memorandum is a request for advice from Ms.                  
               Welhaf to the Office of Associate Chief Counsel                        
               (Procedure & Administration) of respondent’s National                  
               Office concerning proposed legal arguments to be made                  
               at trial in the pending litigation.  This request was                  
               made while this case was docketed.  The author                         
               recommends several legal arguments to be made in the                   
               litigation subject to National Office approval.  The                   
               memorandum also sets forth the factual background                      
               concerning this case.                                                  
               Mitchell S. Hyman, Senior Technical Reviewer, Branch 1,                
          Collection, Bankruptcy and Summons, sent a memorandum dated                 
          January 16, 2002 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Hyman            
          memorandum), which is summarized by respondent as follows:3                 
                    This memorandum responded to Ms. Welhaf’s                         
               September 5, 2001 memorandum seeking advice concerning                 
               the proposed legal arguments to be made at trial in the                
               pending litigation.  The January 16, 2002 memorandum                   
               concluded that: (1) the IRS was authorized by section                  
               6201(a)(1) to make an assessment pursuant to the                       
               amended return filed by petitioners; (2) petitioners                   
               were equitably estopped from contesting the validity of                
               the assessment; (3) the stipulated settlement was a                    
               valid contract; (4) the amended return did not                         

               2 Pursuant to the Court’s order respondent provided the                
          Welhaf memorandum to the Court for in camera inspection, together           
          with a summary; the summary was filed and served on petitioners.            
          After inspecting the Welhaf memorandum, the Court concludes that            
          respondent’s summary is a fair description of the Welhaf                    
          memorandum.                                                                 
               3 Pursuant to the Court’s order respondent provided the                
          unredacted Hyman memorandum to the Court for in camera                      
          inspection, together with a summary; the summary was filed and              
          served on petitioners.  After inspecting the unredacted Hyman               
          memorandum, the Court concludes that respondent’s summary is a              
          fair description of the unredacted Hyman memorandum.                        






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007