- 35 -
the May 16, 2003, letter.” The May 16, 2003, letter stated in
several places that petitioner should respond by “06/15/2003”.
The notice of deficiency was issued on July 18, 2003, and
petitioner proceeded promptly thereafter to consult and then
retain Moffatt to represent him in this matter. Petitioner has
not identified any other “request of the Internal Revenue
Service” to which he might have been responding “On or about May
2003”.
Secondly, in order to believe that petitioner provided the
documents to respondent as stated in his declaration, it appears
that we also have to believe that petitioner had the documents in
late July 2003, when he retained Moffatt and either (a)
petitioner did not then give the documents to Moffatt or (b)
petitioner did then give the documents to Moffatt but Moffatt
chose to “sit on” the documents for many months until early April
2004, when the first motion in limine was filed.19
Petitioner’s statement in his declaration that he mailed the
indicated documents to respondent on or about May 2003 does not
ring true. See, e.g., Burrill v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 643, 662
n.24 (1989).
We have also attempted to take into account petitioner’s
contention in his opening legal memorandum as follows:
19 Moffatt’s hourly itemization shows that his first contact
with respondent (apart from a Freedom of Information Act request)
was a relatively brief telephone call “to IRS” on Feb. 10, 2004.
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011