- 5 -
petition within the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a).
Petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion to dismiss
alleging that the deficiency notices were not mailed to his
correct address. Respondent filed a response to petitioners'
objection countering that the deficiency notices were mailed to
petitioner's last known addresses.
A hearing was conducted at the Court's motions session in
Washington, D.C., on April 16, 1997. Counsel for respondent
appeared at the hearing and presented argument in support of the
pending motion. Although petitioner did not appear at the
hearing, he did file a written statement with the Court pursuant
to Rule 50(c). Petitioner's Rule 50(c) statement includes
allegations that, because petitioner and his wife separated and
reconciled a number of times during the period 1993 through 1995,
petitioner did not receive the notices of deficiency in question.
In particular, petitioner asserts that the notice of deficiency
for 1990 was mailed to his wife's address after one of their
separations, while the notice of deficiency for 1991, 1992, and
1993 was mailed to petitioner's former address after he had
reconciled with his wife and moved back to the Fayetteville
address. Although petitioner does not specify the date of the
purported communication, petitioner asserts that he left a
message for Revenue Officer Pittman in 1995 advising her that he
had moved back to the Fayetteville address. Respondent states
that she has no record of any such communication.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011