- 12 -
After noting the requirement that the Commissioner specify the
petition date in the notice of deficiency, the Senate Finance
Committee report explained that the taxpayer “should be able to
rely on the computation of that period by the IRS.” S. Rept.
105-174, at 90 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 537, 626; see also H. Rept.
105-364 (Part 1), at 71 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 373, 443. This
passage indicates that the justification behind the addition of
the last sentence of section 6213(a) was to protect those
taxpayers who, absent some form of relief, would have
detrimentally relied on the Commissioner’s miscalculation of the
petition date.
The theory of detrimental reliance assumes the actual
provision of misleading information upon which a party could
rely. This case, however, does not involve the provision of
misinformation. Although petitioner appears to argue on brief
that the failure to provide the petition date in the notice led
him to believe that he did not have to file his petition within
the 90-day period,4 we find such argument implausible. As
discussed above, the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner
clearly provided that his petition had to be filed within 90 days
of the mailing of the notice, and it emphasized the consequence
4 Petitioner’s specific argument reads as follows:
“Petitioner received the notice of deficiency, but did not file a
Petition with the Tax Court within 90 days from the date of the
notice of deficiency, since the notice of deficiency did not
specify the last date on which Petitioner could file a Petition.”
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011