- 13 -
of not doing so. We do not believe that a reasonable person, let
alone one with petitioner’s legal training, would interpret the
mere absence of a stamped petition date following the heading
“Last Date to File a Petition With the United States Tax Court”
as the grant of an unlimited filing period, particularly given
the express provisions to the contrary contained in the body of
the notice. Simply put, this is not a case of taxpayer prejudice
which Congress intended to rectify through the addition of the
last sentence of section 6213(a).5
In light of the text of the last sentence of section 6213(a)
and its legislative history, we hold that such provision does not
operate in the instant case to render petitioner’s petition
timely.
C. Conclusion
The notice of deficiency issued by respondent is valid, and
petitioner failed to file a timely petition with this Court.
Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction will be denied, and respondent’s motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction will be granted.
5 We do not address in this opinion the situation in which
a taxpayer receives a deficiency notice omitting the petition
date and files his petition just after expiration of the filing
period set forth in the first sentence of sec. 6213(a) due to the
taxpayer’s miscalculation thereof.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011