- 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