United States Tax Court
___________________ ) Docket No.________________
Petitioner(s) )
) Petition for Redetermination of a Deficiency
vs. ) (The 90 Day Letter)
)
Commisioner Internal Revenue )
Respondent
1. Petitioner(s) hereby file his Petition for Redetermination of a Deficiency (The 90 Day Letter).
2. Petitioner(s) disagree(s) with the determination contained in the Notice of Deficiency issued by the Internal Revenue Service office in _______________for the year(s) or period(s)_____________,as set forth in such notice dated__________. A copy of which is attached.
3. Taxpayer identification number is on the attached form 4, Statement of Taxpayer Identification Number. Also may be attached is form 5, Request for Place of trial.
4. Petitioner(s) request(s) the following relief for the following reasons:
A. The Petitioner requests the Notice of Deficiency be redetermined and his correct tax liability (if any) be determined.
B. Petitioner denies he has any tax liability, and disputes the figures and the contents of the NOD above listed. Petitioner disagrees with the computations, statements and conclusions in the said 90 Day Letter.
5. Petitioner requests that this case be conducted under the regular tax court procedures. Petitioner does NOT want this case conducted as a “small tax case” procedures. X
_____________________________________ _________________________________
Signature of Petitioner Date _________________________________
Address
_____________________________________ _________________________________
Signature of Petitioner (Spouse) Date _________________________________
Address
Attachment to Tax Court Petition
Attachment to Tax Court Petition
“* * * We think our only proper course is to approach the problem indirectly by analysis of the record in the light of the principles established in Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930). Our objective will be, after resolving any reasonable doubts against petitioner, to reconstruct his gross income as betting commissioner at a figure, which in our judgment it would be unlikely to exceed in fact. (Petitioner, it is clear, has failed to establish a lesser amount.)* * *”