Michael M. Dew - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         

          Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of                            
          Jurisdiction in this case on the ground that the petition was not           
          filed within the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a).               
          Petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion to dismiss,            
          asserting that his petition was timely mailed to the Court on               
          April 29, 1998.                                                             
               Respondent subsequently filed both a response to                       
          petitioner's objection and an amendment to respondent's motion to           
          dismiss.  In the response, respondent asserted that the petition            
          arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a U.S. Postal Service           
          postmark date of May 8, 1998.  In the amendment to the motion to            
          dismiss, respondent alleged that the petition should be dismissed           
          with respect to 1994 on the ground that respondent had not issued           
          a notice of deficiency to petitioner for 1994 prior to the filing           
          of the petition in this case.  Petitioner filed a response to               
          respondent's response repeating the allegations made in his                 
          This matter was called for hearing at the Court's motions                   
          session in Washington, D.C.  Counsel for respondent appeared at             
          the hearing and offered argument in support of respondent's                 
          motion to dismiss, as amended.  Although no appearance was                  
          entered at the hearing by or on behalf of petitioner, petitioner            
          did file a Rule 50(c) statement with the Court in which he                  
          maintained that his petition was timely filed.  During the                  
          hearing, counsel for respondent represented to the Court that               
          respondent did not make the handwritten notation (referring to              

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011