- 6 -
There is no dispute in this case that respondent mailed the
notice of deficiency to petitioner on July 7, 2006, or that the
90th day following the mailing of the notice of deficiency in
this case was Thursday, October 5, 2006. Thus, the last day
allowed by law to file a petition in this case was Thursday,
October 5, 2006, which was not a legal holiday in the District of
Columbia. See sec. 6213(a). The petition in this case was not
filed with the Court until October 10, 2006.
Petitioner contends that the petition was timely mailed.
However, the fact that petitioner dated the petition October 6,
2006, which date is the 91st day after the mailing of the notice
of deficiency, belies that contention. Nevertheless, we shall
assume arguendo that petitioner postdated the petition and
address his contention.2
In his Supplement To Objection, petitioner alleges that he
“placed the petition in the mail at the Estes Road post office on
the evening of October 5, 2006.” However, there are two problems
with this contention.
First, the record conclusively demonstrates that the
petition was dispatched to, and arrived at, the Court through a
PDS, namely, UPS. It was not sent to the Court through the U.S.
mail.
2 We should emphasize that there is no persuasive evidence
whatsoever that petitioner did postdate the petition.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007