- 10 -
farcical swearing contests, with impermissibly high rewards for
false testimony, if we awarded unconditional relief to every
taxpayer who was willing to testify that he had not received the
notice of deficiency”). Petitioner’s testimony in the instant
case was unreliable and improbable. We also take note of
respondent’s evidence that, in a divorce proceeding in a superior
court in New Haven, Connecticut, the court determined that
petitioner’s “testimony was consistently not worthy of belief,”
that “he was not truthful about his income,” and that “he lied
about his income and personal expenses.”
The preponderance of the evidence shows that the statutory
notice of deficiency was duly mailed to petitioner at his last
known address and that petitioner failed to petition this Court
within 90 days of the mailing of the notice of deficiency as
required by section 6213(a).3
3 Even if we were to conclude that petitioner did not
receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise did not have an
opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liabilities as provided
by sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), we would hold, on the basis of the
evidence in the record, that respondent properly mailed the
notice of deficiency to petitioner for purposes of sec. 6212 and
that the period of limitations had not run on the assessment of
the liabilities in issue.
Pursuant to sec. 6503(a), the period of limitations on
assessment is suspended during the 90-day period following the
mailing of a notice of deficiency, until the decision of the Tax
Court becomes final, if the taxpayer petitions the Tax Court
during the 90-day period, and for 60 days thereafter. Petitioner
filed his 1994 and 1995 Federal income tax returns on Oct. 16 and
Nov. 1, 1996, respectively. On Aug. 11, 1999, respondent
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011