In the Matter of the Petition - Tax Appeals Tribunal

noted that question 28, which asked for a “complete statement relative to your intentions as to
-8-
residence when you moved from New York State” and “a statement relative to your intentions to
establish a home or principal place of residence,” was unanswered.
24. In a third letter to petitioners dated February 8, 2007, the auditor requested responses
to her letter dated June 20, 2006, and also asked for: an explanation of the allocation of wages to
New York in 2003; an explanation as to why petitioners’ 2003 income tax return claimed that
they were part-year residents of Suffolk County, when the Division’s records indicated that the
th
East 35 Street, New York, New York, apartment was sold on August 14, 2003; and an
explanation of why the amended return filed for the year 2003 indicated that an error in
withholding New York State tax had been made by the business owned by Mr. Byck. The
auditor also requested that petitioners respond directly to her at the address at the top of the
correspondence. Enclosed with the February 8, 2002 letter were, among other things, the June
20, 2006 letter and the long form audit questionnaire. Notations in the audit log indicate that
petitioners did not respond to the auditor’s February 8, 2007 letter or to a letter dated April 24,
2007 that she sent to petitioners.
25. A November 9, 2007 notation in the audit log indicates that the amended income tax
return for the year 2003 was referred to the auditor for review in conjunction with the audit for
that year.
26. During a January 3, 2008 telephone conversation initiated by the auditor, she advised
Mr. Byck that she had not received any information despite numerous letters requesting same.
The auditor further advised that she would send Mr. Byck a letter requesting certain
documentation. In her January 3, 2008 letter to petitioners, the auditor wrote, in pertinent part, as
follows: