- 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
objection.
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