- 12 -
MR. ROBERTS: I couldn’t give an answer to that.
I mean, that’s I don’t know how may years ago. I--you
know,--
At the outset, we observe that the foregoing testimony is
hardly an emphatic declaration on petitioner’s part.
Consequently, when other evidence betokening receipt is weighed
against this equivocation, the former presents the more
compelling picture. The notice of deficiency was sent by
certified mail to the address petitioner himself used on his
delinquent Forms 1040 only 2 months later. Nothing in
respondent’s files indicates return of the notice as
undeliverable or unclaimed. The fact that the late returns
substantially mirror the content of the notice, as to both stated
amounts and type of business activity, also marks an improbable
coincidence in light of petitioner’s averments that he never
earned the income or operated the business so reflected.
There is additionally the September 29, 1994, letter in
respondent’s files that references an inquiry from petitioner
regarding the May 19, 1994, notice. We likewise are mindful of
petitioner’s seeming concession in his trial memorandum that
mentions a May 1994 notice and the subsequent July returns
intended “to get the IRS off his back.”
Given this record, we are satisfied that petitioner received
the notice of deficiency for the tax years 1989, 1990, and 1991
in time to file a petition with this Court and failed to do so.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011