5
1997 through March 1998." No such documents were submitted and
petitioners' statement again is contrary to the stipulated facts.
In their Second Supplemental Objection, petitioners refer to
a doctor's statement as proof that they "WERE out of the United
States during the period in question." The doctor's statement
shows that both petitioners were in Mexico from February 4, 1998
until February 25, 1998. That both petitioners were in Mexico
during the February period is consistent with the stipulated
facts.
Petitioners stipulated that they were in the United States
on December 2, 1997, the date the notices of deficiency were
mailed, and on December 5, 1997, the date the notices of
deficiency ordinarily would have been delivered. Petitioners
never argued that they did not receive the notices of deficiency
on or about that date. We are persuaded that petitioners
received the notices of deficiency on or about December 5, 1997.
Petitioners were in the United States from at least December
2, 1997 to February 3, 1998. Petitioners were out of the country
from February 4, 1998 to February 25, 1998.
This Court has determined that the 150-day period applies
not only to persons who are outside of the United States "on some
settled business and residential basis," but also to persons who
are temporarily absent from the country. Levy v. Commissioner,
76 T.C. 228, 231 (1981); Estate of Krueger v. Commissioner, 33
T.C. 667, 668 (1960). However, the taxpayer's absence must
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011