- 12 -
Where the safe harbor in section 6212(b)(1) does not
apply, the taxpayer's failure to receive the
incorrectly addressed notice of deficiency becomes
relevant and invalidates that notice for all purposes.
However, so long as the notice of deficiency is timely
mailed by the Commissioner and is received without
prejudicial delay by the taxpayer in compliance with
section 6212(a), the notice is effective for all
purposes from the time of its mailing. [Id. at 57.]
With respect to the specific purpose of suspending the period of
limitations pursuant to section 6503(a)(1), we held:
the mailing of the notice of deficiency, which complied
with section 6212(a), which was received by
petitioners, and in regard to which a timely petition
was filed in this Court, tolled the period of
limitations on the date the notice was mailed even
though the notice was not sent to their last known
address. [Id.]
This case falls squarely within the rule of Frieling v.
Commissioner: The October 6 notice was timely sent, although it
may not have been mailed to petitioner’s last known address.
Thereafter, a copy of that notice was received by petitioner, who
timely petitioned this Court on January 3, 1995. See sec.
6213(a). Petitioner cannot complain that the delay it suffered
in receipt of the notice, until November 10, 1994, prejudiced it
by disabling it from timely petitioning this Court. Therefore,
the October 6 notice suspended the running of the period of
limitations. Frieling v. Commissioner, supra at 57 ("so long as
the notice is received within the period for petitioning this
Court and a timely petition is filed, the notice will be valid
under section 6212(a)").
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011