- 16 -
deficiency had been sent to the taxpayer. See id. at 902. The
Court of Appeals rejected the Government counsel’s contention
that the above-noted stipulation amounted to an agreement that
the assessment was valid, held that a valid notice of deficiency
was essential to the validity of the assessment and thus was
jurisdictional in any suit to enforce the assessment lien,
reversed the grant of summary judgment, and remanded for further
proceedings. See id. at 902-903. The three other opinions cited
by petitioners do not discuss the role of stipulations.
All five of the opinions that petitioners cite are
distinguishable from the instant case in that the parties in the
instant case have laid to rest the important factual matter that
the Court of Appeals focused on in Ball; i.e., in the instant
case the parties stipulated that the notice of deficiency was
mailed to petitioners by certified mail on October 22, 1997.
We conclude, and we have found, based on the parties’
stipulations, that respondent has satisfactorily demonstrated
that the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioners by
certified mail on October 22, 1997.
2. Start of 90-Day Period
In their supplemental written objection to respondent’s
motion to dismiss, and in their opening statement at the
8(...continued)
States v. Ball, 326 F.2d 898, 899 (4th Cir. 1964)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011