Tyson Bonty and Torie A. Stephens - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          Accordingly, petitioners contend that the statutory 90-day filing           
          period should not begin until petitioners actually received the             
          notices of deficiency.                                                      
               Petitioners' reliance on Gaw v. Commissioner, supra, and               
          Crawford v. Commissioner, supra, is misplaced.  In each of those            
          cases, the taxpayer did not receive the notice of deficiency                
          prior to the end of the 90-day period allowed for filing a                  
          petition in this Court.  Gaw v. Commissioner, supra at 464                  
          (notice of deficiency not received by the taxpayer because it was           
          returned by the taxpayer's apartment manager to the                         
          Commissioner); Crawford v. Commissioner, supra (notice of                   
          deficiency returned to the Commissioner marked "UNABLE TO                   
          FORWARD").  In the instant cases, however, petitioners concede              
          that they actually received the notices of deficiency prior to              
          the end of such 90-day period.  As we stated supra, a taxpayer's            
          actual receipt of a notice of deficiency, without prejudicial               
          delay, obviates the need to consider a taxpayer's "last known               
          address" pursuant to section 6212(b)(1).  Accordingly, the issue            
          to be decided is whether petitioners' receipt of the notices of             
          deficiency 21 days after they were mailed by respondent                     
          constitutes "prejudicial delay".                                            
               Based upon our review of the records in the instant cases,             
          we conclude that the notices of deficiency were received by                 
          petitioners without prejudicial delay.  Petitioners concede that            
          they received the notices of deficiency on or about June 28,                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011