6
reason to set aside the granting of respondent’s motion to
dismiss. We fail to understand why petitioner was unable to
request additional time to file an objection prior to the
granting of the dismissal. The Court afforded petitioner an
opportunity to be heard in an attempt to determine if there was
some merit to petitioner's procedural and substantive argument.
Petitioner gave no further reason for failing to file a timely
objection to respondent's October 2, 1996, motion. Thus, we
could deny petitioner's motion on these grounds alone without
considering his substantive argument. However, we also recognize
that "This Court has generally favored allowing a party to have
his day in court on the merits of the issue rather than having
the case dismissed on a procedural matter." Ward v.
Commissioner, supra at 952.
Petitioner does not contend that his petition was filed
within the time period prescribed by section 6213(a). Petitioner
contends that the notices of deficiency are invalid because
respondent failed to comply with respondent’s own procedural
rules by issuing the notices of deficiency during the time that
petitioner was permitted to request an appeal of the underlying
proposed adjustments set forth in the 30-day letter. Petitioner,
however, has not moved to dismiss based on the allegedly invalid
notices of deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011