Robert G. Honts - Page 6

            her name, and that the item should be claimed at the local post                                
            office.  The Form 3849 does not indicate the content of the item                               
            delivered, nor does it reveal the identity of the sender.                                      
                  If the customer does not claim the item, the postal service                              
            employee will deliver a second Form 3849 to the customer's                                     
            address with the same information.  Upon the customer's failure                                
            to claim the item after the second notice, the Postal Service                                  
            returns the item to the sender.  The returned item is generally                                
            stamped with one of three notations informing the sender that the                              
            item was either: (1) "Undeliverable" if the customer did not                                   
            reside at the given address; (2) "unclaimed" if the customer did                               
            not claim the item; or (3) "refused" if the customer was actually                              
            handed the item and then refused to accept certified delivery.                                 
                  Assuming, arguendo, that the notice of deficiency is valid,                              
            the 90-day period for filing a petition with this Court expired                                
            on Thursday, July 8, 1993, which date was not a legal holiday in                               
            the District of Columbia.  On August 31, 1993, Agent Lizcano was                               
            present in Mr. Demel's office for a closing conference concerning                              
            later taxable years of petitioner.  During the conference Agent                                
            Lizcano inquired as to petitioner's intent regarding the notice                                
            issued on April 9, 1993.  This was the first time petitioner's                                 
            accountants learned of the outstanding notice of deficiency.  Mr.                              
            Demel requested a copy of the notice, and received the same on                                 
            September 1, 1993.  Petitioner mailed his petition in this case                                
            on September 8, 1993, and it was filed on September 13, 1993.                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011