- 7 -
the notice is timely. See Frieling v. Commissioner, supra at 54;
Whirlpool Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 182 (1973); Morrison v.
Commissioner, 11 T.C. 696, 704 (1948), affd. per curiam 177 F.2d
351 (2d Cir. 1949); also see St. Joseph Lease Capital Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra.
Petitioners assert that a notice of deficiency must be
received by a taxpayer before the expiration of the period of
limitations. Petitioners filed their 1995 tax return on October
17, 1996. The notice was mailed to petitioners on October 6,
1999, less than 3 years after the 1995 tax return was filed.
Therefore, respondent timely mailed the statutory notice to
petitioners prior to the expiration of the 3-year period.
Petitioners further argue that the notice of deficiency was
untimely because the original was not sent to petitioners’
representative, whose address constitutes petitioners’ last known
address. This Court and others have interpreted sections 6212(a)
and 6503(a) to provide that a notice sent by mail will toll the
period of limitations, so long as the taxpayer has actual notice
and is not prejudiced in seeking redress to this Court. See St.
Joseph Lease Capital Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 889; Scheidt
v. Commissioner, 967 F.2d 1448, 1450-51 (10th Cir. 1992), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1985-235; Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691, 692-
93 (11th Cir. 1985); Clodfelter v. Commissioner, 527 F.2d at 757;
Frieling v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011