- 10 -
respondent’s motion because respondent did not provide
petitioner’s counsel with any of the pertinent documents in
advance of filing the motion. By Order dated August 3, 2001, the
Court notified the parties that respondent’s motion would be
called for hearing at the Court’s motions session to be held in
Washington, D.C., on September 5, 2001.
Counsel for both parties appeared at the aforementioned
motions session and offered argument with respect to respondent's
motion. During the hearing, the Court questioned petitioner’s
counsel whether petitioner denied that he actually received the
notices of deficiency in question or that he authored the letters
to respondent dated October 30, 1991, and June 1, 1992. The
responses by petitioner’s counsel to the Court’s queries were
evasive and coy. Consequently, the Court suggested that counsel
obtain an affidavit from petitioner addressing the Court’s
queries. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court orally
directed the parties to file written supplements. The parties
complied with the Court’s Order.
Petitioner’s written supplement includes assertions that
respondent failed to establish that petitioner actually received
the notices of deficiency and that respondent erred in mailing
notices to the DalRich Village address, which petitioner asserts
was an address for a Mail Boxes, Etc. business, instead of to
petitioner’s residential address (which petitioner failed to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011