Stanley D. and Rosemary A. Clough - Page 1

                                   119 T.C. No. 10                                    

                               UNITED STATES TAX COURT                                

              STANLEY D. CLOUGH AND ROSEMARY A. CLOUGH, Petitioners v.                
                    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent                      

               Docket No. 6836-02.               Filed October 18, 2002.              

                    R filed a motion to dismiss for lack of                           
               jurisdiction on the ground that Ps’ petition was not                   
               timely filed.  R attached a copy of the certified mail                 
               list showing that the notice of deficiency was mailed                  
               on Dec. 4, 2001.  The U.S. Postal Service postmark on                  
               the envelope in which the petition was mailed was dated                
               Mar. 21, 2002, a date more than 90 days after the                      
               mailing of the notice of deficiency.  R filed sworn                    
               declarations of the manager of the office that                         
               maintained the certified mail list stating that the                    
               list was obtained from records of that office.  R also                 
               filed a declaration of a processing clerk of the U.S.                  
               Postal Service outlining the procedure that he follows                 
               in processing certified mail and stating that on Dec.                  
               4, 2001, he placed a postal stamp on the certified mail                
               list attached to R’s motion.  Ps object to the                         
               introduction into evidence of the certified mail list                  
               and the declarations on the grounds that these                         
               documents constitute inadmissible hearsay.                             

Page:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011