- 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 toPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011