- 13 -
the normal course of operations; and (2) the postmark stamp was
placed on the certified mail list by Mr. Holt, a U.S. Postal
Service mail processing clerk, consistent with normal practices.7
Petitioners have offered no evidence that the disputed
documents are somehow unreliable. In the absence of any such
evidence, we shall admit the certified mail list and the
declarations into evidence.
In sum, respondent has produced competent and persuasive
evidence that duplicate original notices of deficiency were
mailed to petitioners on December 4, 2001. See Cataldo v.
Commissioner, 60 T.C. at 524. Petitioners have not presented any
evidence that the notices of deficiency were mailed on any date
other than December 4, 2001. Because we conclude that the
notices of deficiency were mailed to petitioners on December 4,
2001, it follows that the petition was not filed within the
statutory 90-day period. Consequently, we shall grant
respondent’s motion and dismiss this case for lack of
jurisdiction.8
7 Petitioners have not argued that respondent failed to
comply with the final sentence of Fed. R. Evid. 902.
8 Although we lack jurisdiction in this case, petitioners
are not without a remedy. In short, petitioners may pay the tax,
file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service, and if
the claim is denied, sue for a refund in the Federal District
Court or the Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011