Ronald S. Raczkowski - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
               Thereafter, by Order dated December 29, 2006, the Court                
          directed petitioner to supplement his Notice Of Objection by                
               setting forth who prepared the petition, who placed the                
               petition in the mail, the location where the petition                  
               was deposited into the mail, and the circumstances                     
               surrounding the purported mailing of the petition to                   
               the Tax Court on or before October 5, 2006, which                      
               petitioner appears to allege in numbered paragraph 1.                  
               of his Objection and * * * attach to that supplement                   
               copies of any documents establishing the timely mailing                
               of the petition to the Court on or before October 5,                   
               2006.                                                                  
               On January 23, 2007, petitioner responded to the                       
          aforementioned Order by filing a Supplement To Objection.  In it,           
          petitioner states as follows:                                               
                    The petition was prepared by myself, Ronald S.                    
               Raczkowski.  I placed the petition in the mail at the                  
               Estes Road post office on the evening of October 5,                    
               2006.  The mail apparently did not get picked up until                 
               October 6, 2006.  I do not have any documents which                    
               establish the above situation.                                         
               A hearing on respondent’s motion was held in Washington,               
          D.C., on March 7, 2007.  At that time, counsel for respondent               
          appeared and argued in support of the pending motion.  In                   
          contrast, there was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner,            
          nor did petitioner file a written statement pursuant to Rule                
          50(c), the provisions of which were noted by the Court in its               
          Order calendaring respondent’s motion for hearing.                          












Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007