Patrick Anthony Masino - Page 9

                                                - 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