TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Wayne & Lois Hampton
Docket Number: 3092-01
Judge: Swift
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 06/13/2002
Pages: 3

SERVICE . STAT. 5. T. JUDGE . T.C. Memo. 2002-151 I UNITED STATES TAX COURT . WAYNE HAMPTON AND LOIS HAMPTON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 3092-01. Filed June 13, 2002. John M. Moles, for petitioners. Gary L. Bloom, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SWIFT, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $75,075 in aetitioners' Federal income tax for 1994. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 1994. SERVED JUN 1 3 2002 - 3 - not all of the adjustments reflected in respondent's above 30-day letter. Upon respondent's review of the additional records provided, some adjustments set forth in the 30-day letter were conceded by respondent, and on August 27, 1998, respondent issued to petitioners a revised 30-day letter. On July 16, 1999, after petitioners had provided to respondent's revenue agent yet additional records, respondent . issued to petitioners a second revised 30-day letter, reflecting additional concessions by respondent. . Petitioners again protested to respondent's Appeals Office the adjustments set forth in respondent's second revised 30-day letter. Petitioners then provided to respondent's Appeals Office . even more records relating to some of the remaining adjustments that had previously not been provided. Upon review of these records, respondent conceded or settled additional adjustments. • On December 7, 2000, respondent mailed to petitioners a notice o.f deficiency for petitioners' 1994 Federal income tax liability that reflected the adjustments that had not been agreed to., and on March 7, 2001, petitioners filed their petition herein. . Shortly prior to the scheduled trial and as a result of additional records provided by petitioners to respondent for the • first time, petitioners and respondent reached a basis for - 5 - failed to attend various scheduled meetings with respondent's representatives and failed timely to produce records. Respondent's audit, respondent's Appeals Office consideration, and the ultimate settlement of petitioners' case in :his Court all appear to have been delayed by the haphazard fashion in which petitioners produced their records. On the limited record before us in this case, we conclude that petitioners' delay in producing records protracted the administrative and court proceedings within the meaning of section 7430(b)(3). Petitioners are not entitled to an award of any litigation costs. See Polycor Inc. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 963, 968 (1988). To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order and decision will be entered.