- 3 -
in Medfield, Massachusetts. Petitioner received the notice and
filed a timely petition.
On January 9, 1997, respondent served petitioner with formal
requests to admit facts, answer interrogatories, and produce
documents. Petitioner did not respond to the request to admit
facts. As a result, the facts were deemed admitted by operation
of Rule 90(c). In addition, petitioner did not respond to the
requests to produce documents and answer interrogatories. On
February 25, 1997, respondent filed motions to compel petitioner
to comply with these two requests. This Court, by order dated
February 28, 1997, granted respondent's motions and ordered
petitioner's compliance. Subsequent to our order, petitioner, in
a letter to respondent, denied that he had any of the requested
documents. He did not answer any of respondent's
interrogatories.
OPINION
Petitioner contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction
because the notice of deficiency was not sent to the proper
address. See 6212(b); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27
(1989). At trial, respondent produced a copy of the statutory
notice bearing petitioner's address. Petitioner alleged that the
address on the notice was altered. Petitioner also contended
that the notice was not addressed to him. He testified: "The
letter * * * is sent to Leon Landry * * * I am not Leon Landry;
my name is Leon Albert Landry." Petitioner's contentions are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011