- 9 -
Petitioner argues that 69 days was not sufficient time to
file a petition in this case because he was heavily involved in
the posttrial and sentencing phase of his Federal money
laundering conviction at the time the notice of deficiency was
issued. In addition, petitioner contends that the deficiency was
determined using information from the Federal money laundering
case and it was necessary for him to review the large volume of
evidence in the money laundering case to verify the accuracy of
the statements in the petition before filing it. In this regard,
petitioner argues that the delay in receiving the notice was
prejudicial.
Despite petitioner's explanations, we find that petitioner's
own inaction was responsible for the late filing. The
substantive issues in this case do not appear complex and involve
petitioner's failure to report income from illegal activities.
Petitioner completed the one-page petition over 2 weeks before he
mailed it. The petition does not contain any factual allegations
as to the correct amount of petitioner's taxable income for the
years in issue. On the facts of this case, we find that
petitioner received the notice of deficiency with sufficient time
to file a petition. Petitioner's failure to file a timely
petition was not the result of any possible error in the address
to which the notice of deficiency was mailed. Accordingly, we
find that the notice was valid and grant respondent's motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
To reflect the foregoing,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011