- 10 -
is April 8. However, closer scrutiny clearly reveals that the
chronologically earlier date is the correct one.”
In the instant case, we do not agree with respondent that
the date stamped on the notice of deficiency presents a “patent
ambiguity” such that petitioner was not entitled to rely on his
reading of that date. Rather, we think that petitioner’s reading
was eminently reasonable. Indeed, as previously stated, the date
stamped on the notice appears to the unaided eye to be March 24,
2007, and it is only upon close examination, using a magnifying
glass and a powerful beam of light, that ambiguity arises. In
short, the date stamped on the notice of deficiency does not
invite “closer scrutiny”, thereby making respondent’s reliance on
Meader v. Commissioner, supra, inapposite.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the date of March 24, 2007, shall be treated
as the date of mailing of the notice of deficiency for purposes
of section 6213(a). See Loyd v. Commissioner, supra; Jones v.
Commissioner, supra. Because the petition was mailed to the
Court within 90 days of that date, the petition was timely filed,
see sec. 7502(a), and this case may go forward. Accordingly, we
shall issue an order (1) denying respondent’s Motion To Dismiss
For Lack Of Jurisdiction, filed August 17, 2007, and (2)
directing respondent to file an answer to the petition.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008