- 7 -
1996, which is 21 days after they were mailed. Accordingly,
petitioners had 69 days remaining in the 90-day filing period to
file petitions. We have held that receipt of a notice of
deficiency that was addressed incorrectly with 69 or fewer days
remaining in the filing period was not prejudicial. Bowers v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-609 (69 days remaining); Fileff v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-452 (60 days remaining); George v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-147 (52 days remaining); Loftin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-322 (30 days remaining). But see
Sicker v. Commissioner, 815 F.2d 1400, 1401 (11th Cir. 1987) (the
Court of Appeals held that receipt of a notice of deficiency with
8 days remaining in the filing period was not ample time in which
to prepare a petition); Looper v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 690, 699
(1980) (receipt of notice with 17 days remaining was
prejudicial).
Petitioners do not offer any explanation for their failure
to file petitions timely, and it may be inferred that their own
inaction, after the receipt of the notices, was responsible for
the late filing. Petitioners' failure to file timely petitions
does not appear to be the result of any error in the address to
which the notices of deficiency were mailed. Consequently, on
the basis of the facts and circumstances of the instant cases, we
hold that petitioners received the notices of deficiency without
prejudicial delay and in ample time to file petitions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011