- 3 -
MAIL” sticker, bearing a certified mail number. The sender’s
receipt has been removed at the perforation. Petitioner claims,
however, not to have received a sender’s receipt.
Discussion
If the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner on
December 29, 1998, as respondent contends, then the 90-day period
prescribed by section 6213(a) for filing a petition with the
Court expired on Monday, March 29, 1999, which was not a legal
holiday in the District of Columbia. Respondent contends that
the petition was not postmarked until March 30, 1999, and that
therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction. See sec. 7502(a); Rule
13(a).
In opposing respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, petitioner argues first that respondent has failed
to prove that the notice of deficiency was mailed on or before
December 29, 1998, and that therefore the petition was timely,
even if postmarked March 30, 1999. From the evidence in the
record, however, we are satisfied that respondent mailed the
notice of deficiency to petitioner on December 29, 1998. The
record includes a copy of the notice of deficiency, dated
December 29, 1998, that was mailed to and received by petitioner,
as well as a copy of U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 (Form 3877),
which is postmarked December 29, 1998. The Form 3877 states
along the top that “NOTICES OF DEFICIENCY FOR THE YEARS INDICATED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011