- 6 -
Consistent with cases such as Mulvania v. Commissioner, supra, we
hold that petitioner received the notice of deficiency with ample
time to file a timely petition for redetermination.7 Moreover,
even assuming that petitioner is entitled to the 150-day period
prescribed in section 6213(a) for filing her petition with this
Court (a matter that we need not and do not decide), the petition
in this case was hand delivered to the Court and filed on
September 12, 1995, a date that falls 151 days after the mailing
of the deficiency notice. See Rule 25(a); McGuire v.
Commissioner, 52 T.C. 468 (1969).
Petitioner argues that September 12, 1995, represents the
150th day rather than the 151st day. Petitioner begins by
counting the day after the date of mailing as the first day
(April 15, 1995). She then indicates that April 15 is the 105th
day of the year and adds 150 days to that date to get to the
255th day of the year 1995 (September 12). Accordingly,
petitioner concludes that September 12, 1995, is the 150th day
after the mailing of the notice of deficiency.
Petitioner's computation is not correct. While it is
accurate to count as the first day, the day after the notice of
7 The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit distinguished
Balkissoon v. Commissioner, 995 F.2d 525 (4th Cir. 1993), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1992-322, from Powell v. Commissioner, 958 F.2d 53, 56
(4th Cir. 1992), revg. and remanding an order of this Court. In
Powell, the Court of Appeals found that the notice of deficiency
was not delivered to or received by the taxpayers. In
Balkissoon, as in this case, the taxpayer received the notice of
deficiency in ample time to file a petition.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011