St. Joseph Lease Capital Corporation - Page 12

                                       - 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