- 39 -
“My statement [in a teleconference with Moffatt and Wu] that it
could indicate correspondence sent in to the Internal Revenue
Service was only intended as a possibility.”
We noted in a telephone conference with counsel for the
parties that (1) neither petitioner nor Moffatt stated that
either of them had sent anything to respondent at such a time
that respondent would have received it on or about July 28, 2003,
(2) in light of the timing (the notice of deficiency and the
absence of any notation in Moffatt’s hourly itemization showing a
communication to respondent around this time) it seemed highly
unlikely that respondent received documents from petitioner on
July 28, 2003, and (3) deposition of these two employees of
respondent would most probably be merely an unproductive fishing
expedition adding to an already extraordinary cost of this $2,890
case--a cost of litigating the motion for costs and not of
litigating the case. We commented that, if a request for
depositions were to be made and opposed, then we would most
likely not order the depositions. Presumably in reliance on that
expression by the Court, petitioner did not formally institute
further discovery by depositions on this point.
We also have taken into account petitioner’s contention in
his opening legal memorandum:
1. Respondent, Petitioner contends, was on
notice of the error when Petitioner called
Respondent’s service center on more than one
occasion.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011