Robert Baxter - Page 2




                                        - 2 -2                                            
          filed November 6, 2000, and petitioner’s Notice of Objection,               
          filed December 4, 2000.  The parties appeared and were heard.               
          Background                                                                  
               In a statutory notice of deficiency dated April 29, 1998,              
          respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income           
          tax for the year 1995 in the amount of $9,076, and a penalty                
          pursuant to section 66621 in the amount of $640.                            
               The notice of deficiency was mailed, by certified mail, to             
          petitioner’s last known address: 359 Greenway Drive, Pacifica,              
          California, 94004-2920592.  The notice of deficiency, dated April           
          29, 1998, was returned to the Internal Revenue Service as                   
          unclaimed, after the U.S. Postal Service had waited 15 days for             
          petitioner to claim the letter.  The U.S. Postal Service                    
          attempted to deliver the notice of deficiency to petitioner on              
          May 1 and 6, 1998.                                                          
               At the January 22, 2001, hearing in this case, respondent              
          represented to the Court:                                                   
                    In this case, the exhibits attached to our motion                 
               show that the IRS issue of the stat notice to the                      
               petitioner at his last known address, that the Post                    
               Office attempted delivery several times, and that                      
               petitioner did not pick up -- refused to pick up the                   
               statutory notice of deficiency.                                        
                    And apparently the reason as set forth in this                    
               objection, where he indicated he shouldn’t have to take                


          1         All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code           
          currently in effect.                                                        





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011