- 8 -
handled pursuant to the postal regulations, and this is further
evidence of postal mishandling.
Williams testified that she could not recall delivering this
particular piece of mail. Such a lack of recollection may seem
entirely appropriate in view of the large number of items handled
each day by a letter carrier. Here the item was certified and
supposedly went out for delivery several times before return to
the sender with markings that are chronologically impossible.
In sum, the letter carrier has no recollection of the item;
at least one of the stampings on the envelope is at best
inaccurate; and the postal authorities failed to follow their own
regulations concerning the handling of certified mail. There is
evidence of irregularity in the Postal Service's handling of the
item here and, with respect to the issue of actual delivery,
those irregularities are too significant to be ignored.
Additionally, both petitioners have testified that they did
not receive the certified mail delivery they were awaiting.
Anthony Sicari was explicit and emphatic in his testimony that he
had been told to await the deficiency notice and call his tax
advisers immediately upon the receipt of such a document. One of
his accountants, Noreen Masztal, testified that she had explained
to Mr. Sicari that the 90-day letter should be expected and that
in their own interests the Sicaris should act on it promptly.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011