- 49 -
to supply requested information or a current mailing
address to the district director or service center
having jurisdiction over the tax matter); and
(ii) The party does not refuse to participate in
an Appeals office conference while the case is in
docketed status.
As respondent concedes, petitioner did not receive a “30-day
letter”. Respondent contends this failure was “because he
[petitioner] failed to supply the supporting information
requested in the May 16, 2003 letter”.
As we have detailed in our findings (supra text at note 7)
the May 16, 2003, letter amounted to eight pages of detailed
directions on four different forms, plus a copy of Publication
3498. The 3-year limitations period would not expire for almost
35 months. We conclude that, applying section 301.7430-
1(f)(2)(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs., to the facts of the instant
case, petitioner’s failure to receive the 30-day letter was not
due to petitioner’s actions but to respondent’s determination to
shortcut the process; it would not be appropriate to allow
respondent to cut off petitioner’s possible entitlement to
benefits by (a) requiring a 30-day letter and (b) refusing to
issue a 30-day letter when there was ample time (almost 35
months) to do so.
We next consider section 301.7430-1(f)(2)(ii), Proced. &
Admin. Regs. In applying this provision to the instant case we
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011