Yvonne Thomas - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          timely Tax Court petition and that during her hearing with                  
          respondent’s Appeals Office she should have been allowed (and now           
          in this collection case should be allowed) to raise an issue as             
          to her correct 2002 Federal income tax liability.                           
               Further, petitioner claims that various physical, mental,              
          and emotional disabilities have afflicted her for years and                 
          provide an equitable basis to excuse petitioner from not filing a           
          timely petition to challenge respondent’s notice of deficiency.             
               Petitioner summarizes that, taken together, the suspected              
          theft, the police department’s possession for over a year of the            
          notice of deficiency, and petitioner’s poor medical condition               
          justify an equitable relaxation of the limitation of section                
          6330(c)(2)(B) and a ruling on the instant motions that would                
          allow petitioner now to raise the issue as to the correct income            
          she realized on 2002 stock sales and her correct 2002 Federal               
          income tax liability.                                                       
               On brief petitioner adds to her arguments.  Petitioner                 
          refers to language in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) which               
          provides that, “In a CDP hearing, a taxpayer may raise and                  
          Appeals must consider, a liability that arose as a result of math           
          error notice adjustments.”  4 Administration, Internal Revenue              
          Manual (CCH), sec., at 27,306.  Petitioner claims           
          that whatever income petitioner realized in 2002 from the sale of           
          stock would be offset by petitioner’s cost basis in the stock and           
          that the failure to take into account petitioner’s cost basis               

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

Last modified: November 10, 2007