Benjamin V. Gomez - Page 2

          180, 181 and 183.1  The Court agrees with and adopts the opinion            
          of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below.                       
                         OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE                           
               NAMEROFF, Special Trial Judge:  This case is before us on              
          respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  On                
          August 3, 1995, respondent sent petitioner a notice of deficiency           
          for the taxable year 1992 determining an income tax deficiency of           
          $11,294, and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $2,823,           
          and under section 6654(a) of $491.  The time within which to file           
          a timely petition from that notice of deficiency expired on                 
          November 1, 1995.                                                           
               On November 13, 1995, the Court filed a petition with                  
          respect to 1992.  It is alleged therein that petitioner's mailing           
          address was 201 South Hazel, La Habra, California 90631.  The               
          envelope in which the petition was mailed bore a private postage            
          meter stamp dated October 30, 1995, reflecting postage of 32                
          cents plus seven 32-cent postage stamps.  The envelope contains a           
          series of markings which have been described as cancellation                
          stamps, indicating that the cancellation was done by a Los                  
          Angeles Post Office on November 7, 1995.2                                   

          1         All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code           
          in effect for the years in issue.  All Rule references are to the           
          Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                                  
          2  It is unclear whether these cancellation marks constitute                
          a postmark that would supersede the private postage meter stamp             
          and control the mailing date for purposes of sec. 7502.  However,           
          in view of our disposition of respondent's motion, we need not              

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011