Michael H. and Barbara Selter - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         

          the hearing and offered argument in support of respondent's                 
          motion to dismiss.  Also, respondent called as a witness Waverly            
          Vaughan (Ms. Vaughan), Supervisor of Operations at the U.S.                 
          Postal Service located on Brentwood Road in Washington, D.C.  The           
          U.S. Postal Service on Brentwood Road is responsible for                    
          delivering mail to the Tax Court.                                           
               Ms. Vaughan testified that certified mail item No. Z 401 327           
          528 was received at the Brentwood Road Postal Service either late in        
          the evening on March 7, 2000, or very early in the morning on March         
          8, 2000.  Ms. Vaughan also testified that the normal delivery time          
          for an item mailed from one address in Washington, D.C., to another         
          address in Washington, D.C., is 1 to 2 days.  Ms. Vaughan further           
          testified that normally an envelope lacking postage would be                
          returned to the sender or delivered to the addressee for collection         
          of the postage due.  However, Ms. Vaughan acknowledged that the             
          Postal Service does, on occasion, mistakenly deliver mail lacking           
          postage.                                                                    
          Mr. Selter appeared at the motions hearing and offered argument             
          in opposition to respondent's motion.  When the Court informed Mr.          
          Selter that the Court would not rely on Ms. Hunt's conflicting              
          declarations in deciding the case, Mr. Selter requested a                   
          continuance to allow him to call Ms. Hunt as a witness.                     
               This matter was called for a second hearing at the Court's             
          motions session in Washington, D.C.  Both counsel for respondent and        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011