Tim R. Casanova and San Juanita Villareal - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         

          argument in support of respondent's motion to dismiss.  There was           
          no appearance at the hearing by or on behalf of petitioners.                
          During the hearing, the Court made a number of exhibits part of             
          the record in this case--exhibits pertaining to the nature and              
          timing of significant developments in docket No. 1418-98S.                  
               By Order dated December 1, 1998, the Court served                      
          petitioners with the transcript of the November 25, 1998, hearing           
          and the exhibits that were made a part of the record at that                
          time.  In addition, petitioners were provided with the                      
          opportunity to file a response with the Court.                              
               On December 23, 1998, petitioners filed a response with the            
          Court in which they state that they recently discovered, contrary           
          to prior statements, that they did receive the deputy clerk's               
          February 26, 1998, letter.  Petitioners' response includes an               
          explanation regarding the initials "MLP" appearing on                       
          petitioners' copy of Postal Service Form 1000.  Petitioners'                
          response states in pertinent part as follows:                               
               Reason for MLP on document.  Postal Service Worker                     
               stated that #13 on PS Form 1000 was not [to] be filled                 
               out by Petitioner but only by the respondent.  Mistake                 
               was made by [petitioners'] employee, Maria Linda Perez.                
               Postal Employee Arnold Padron told Ms. Perez to scratch                
               off the mistake and put her initials by it so that the                 
               court would not assume that the post office tampered                   
               with the document.                                                     
          Discussion                                                                  
               This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency                  
          depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a             
          timely filed petition.  Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner,             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011