- 6 -
conclusion, we need not, and do not, decide whether the notice
was sent to petitioners’ “last known address”.3
B. The Damaged Notice
Petitioners argue that the notice of deficiency mailed on
October 6, 1999, was damaged by the USPS, and, as a result, the
notice was invalid. Petitioners submitted a copy of the torn
envelope with the apology notice from the USPS. Petitioners did
not submit an original or copy of the notice of deficiency. In
successive pleadings by petitioners, the condition of the notice
of deficiency deteriorated from “damaged” to “destroyed”. We
have some doubt as to the extent of the damage to the notice of
deficiency. However, petitioners were not prejudiced, as they
received actual notice and in fact filed a timely petition with
this Court contesting the determinations in the notice.
C. Statute of Limitations
Section 6501(a) provides that respondent generally must
assess any deficiency in the payment of income taxes within 3
years of the filing of a return. The period of limitations is
suspended upon the mailing of a notice of deficiency pursuant to
section 6212(a). See sec. 6503(a)(1). This Court has repeatedly
held that the date the notice of deficiency is mailed, not the
date on which it was received by the taxpayer, determines whether
3 For the same reasons, we need not decide whether the
Form 2848, as to Mr. Biskis’ estate, was a valid power of
attorney.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011