- 5 -
Commissioner, 68 T.C. 779, 783 (1977). In Malekzad v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 963, 969-970 (1981), we explained that in
determining whether the 150-day period is applicable, we look at
both the date of mailing of the notice of deficiency as well as
the date on which the notice was received by the taxpayer. The
crucial inquiry is whether the taxpayer falls within the class of
persons that Congress intended to receive the benefit of the
longer period and whether the notice of deficiency served the
notice function that it was designed to serve. Id. at 970. The
congressional purpose behind the enactment of the 150-day rule
was the prevention of hardships caused by delays in the receipt
of a notice of deficiency due to the taxpayer’s absence from the
United States and the relatively slow international mails.
Looper v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 690, 694 (1980).
Application of the approach utilized in Malekzad v.
Commissioner, supra, to the facts in the instant case clearly
reveals that petitioners were not entitled to the 150-day period
for filing their petition. Petitioners were in the United States
on the dates that the notices of deficiency were mailed as well
as on the dates that they were received. Indeed, petitioners did
not travel to the Philippines until 93 days after the first
notice of deficiency was mailed and 71 days after the second
notice of deficiency was mailed. Thus, petitioners’ absence from
the country in no way resulted in a delay in the receipt of
either notice. Lewy v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011