-7-
6213(a) should be the date stamped on the envelope in which the
notice of deficiency was mailed.
In attempting to define the term "is mailed" appearing in
section 6213(a), we first observed that:
The term itself is not precise, and the legislative
history shows only that such date is not the date of
actual receipt by the taxpayer. See Seidman's
Legislative History of Federal Income Tax Laws (1938-
1861) p.759; United Telephone Co., 1 B.T.A. 450 (1925).
[Traxler v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. at 98-99.]
See Metropolitan Community Service, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1987-240.
In the absence of a statutory definition of the term "is
mailed", we focused on three dates that arguably could apply for
purposes of computing the 90-day filing period: (1) The date
appearing on the notice of deficiency; (2) the date that the
Commissioner delivered the notice of deficiency to the U.S.
Postal Service; and (3) the date of the postmark (if any)
appearing on the envelope bearing the notice of deficiency.
Traxler v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. at 99. Consistent with cases
such as Southern California Loan Association v. Commissioner,
supra, and Hurst, Anthony & Watkins v. Commissioner, supra, we
immediately eliminated from consideration the date appearing on
the notice of deficiency. We reasoned that "it seems best not to
make taxpayers dependent on the efficiency of the Internal
Revenue Service [in dating the notice of deficiency]". Traxler
v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. at 99.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011