- 38 -
Secondly, petitioner asserts that two of respondent’s
employees “had previously conveyed to Petitioner’s counsel that
this record [presumably the July 28, 2003, entry] could only be
accomplished by and a direct result of receiving correspondence
from Petitioner,” and that petitioner could have shown this if he
had been allowed to depose these employees. The parties have
stipulated declarations by these two employees under penalties of
perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1746. One employee,
Gerald R. Franco, declares that (1) (a) the indicated Document
Locator Number and Transaction Code show that “a notice was
generated by the Internal Revenue Service to the taxpayer”, (b)
they do not show that correspondence was received by the Internal
Revenue Service from the taxpayer, and (2) he cannot explain the
term “CORRESPONDDT-”, but he can state that this notation “does
not indicate the receipt of correspondence from a taxpayer.” The
other employee, Barbara M. DeLeo, declares that (1) she is a
customer service representative, (2) her records show that she
spoke on the telephone with someone about petitioner’s case, but
that she has no recollection of having had this telephone
conversation or of what was said, (3) that she is not familiar
with the type of document (the IMF MCC Transcript - Specific) and
does not know the meaning of the term “CORRESPONDDT-”, and (4)
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011