David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         

         Statement also indicates that, on November 15, 1995, the Board               
         recorded to petitioner’s tax account for 1993:  (1) A $1,666                 
         proposed assessment for that year which became final on that day,            
         and (2) $2,834 of penalties and $56.07 of interest for that year.            
         The Statement provides that, as of November 27, 1995, petitioner             
         owed the Board $2,860.23 in income tax, penalties, and interest              
         for its 1993 income tax year.  Petitioner concludes from the                 
         Statement that it owed the Board no income taxes from April 15,              
         1993, through November 15, 1995, and, hence, it should not have              
         been suspended between those dates.                                          
              We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s argument that its                    
         suspension was improper either ab initio or beginning in 1993.               
         The certificate of the secretary of state provides clearly that              
         petitioner’s corporate powers, rights, and privileges were                   
         suspended at least through the period from April 1, 1991, through            
         February 15, 2000, and the Board’s certificate of revivor states             
         just as clearly that petitioner’s rights, powers, and privileges             
         were only restored effective February 28, 2000.  Petitioner does             
         not adequately dispute this prima facie evidence.  Even assuming             
         that the certificate of the secretary of state is not conclusive,            
         an assumption that we make with much reservation, we give little             
         weight to petitioner’s bald assertion that it never received the             
         notice required under the statutory scheme.  Nor do we believe               
         that the Statement supports petitioner’s assertion that it owed              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011