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