- 4 -
respondent’s motion, counsel for respondent noted that the
Court’s docket records reflected that the petition was served on
respondent on January 16, 2001. In addition, counsel for
respondent provided the Court with a certified mail receipt
indicating that respondent mailed the motion to dismiss to the
Court on March 2, 2001--45 days after service of the petition.
Following the hearing, petitioner filed a memorandum in
opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner argued:
(1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss was not timely filed;2 and (2)
section 32(c)(2)(B)(iv) was not intended to exclude from the
definition of earned income amounts received by prison inmates
for services provided to private companies as opposed to services
provided to a penal institution.
Respondent filed a memorandum in support of his motion to
dismiss. Respondent argued that the Court had jurisdiction over
the petition inasmuch as the denial of a claimed earned income
credit is treated as a deficiency pursuant to section 6211(b)(4).
Respondent repeated the argument that petitioner’s earnings are
2 Shortly after respondent’s motion to dismiss was filed,
petitioner submitted to the Court a Motion to Quash Respondent’s
Motion To Dismiss arguing that respondent’s motion to dismiss was
not timely filed. Petitioner’s motion to quash was returned to
petitioner unfiled with an explanation that the Court had granted
leave to file respondent’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner
responded by sending a second letter to the Court questioning
whether it was appropriate for the Court to grant leave to file
respondent’s motion to dismiss.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011