- 4 -
on July 6, 1995, for the second notice of deficiency. Neither
date was a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the District of
Columbia. Id. On July 17, 1995, the Court received and filed
the petition. The envelope in which such petition was mailed
bore a legible United States postmark date of July 13, 1995, 119
days after the mailing of the first notice of deficiency and 97
days after the mailing of the second notice of deficiency. Sec.
7502(a)(1). Our jurisdiction, therefore, depends on whether
petitioners were entitled to file their petition within 150 days
after the notices of deficiency were mailed. Petitioners bear
the burden of demonstrating that they come within the scope of
the provision allowing 150 days for the mailing of the petition
where the notice is addressed to a person outside of the country.
Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Petitioners were in the United States from March 16, 1995,
through June 17, 1995. On June 17, 1995, petitioners traveled to
the Philippines. Petitioners returned to the United States on
July 3, 1995.
This Court has determined that the 150-day period applies
not only to persons who are outside of the United States “on some
settled business and residential basis” but also to persons who
are temporarily absent from the country. Levy v. Commissioner,
76 T.C. 228, 231 (1981); Estate of Krueger v. Commissioner, 33
T.C. 667, 668 (1960). However, the taxpayer’s absence must
result in delayed receipt of the deficiency notice. Lewy v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011