-9-
Notwithstanding the statement in Traxler v. Commissioner,
supra, to the contrary, we also have had occasion to hold that
the date appearing on the notice of deficiency is the date of
mailing for purposes of section 6213(a). In particular, in both
Loyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-172, and Jones v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-171, the Commissioner placed the
notices of deficiency in the mail 3 days prior to the date
appearing on the notices of deficiency. The petitions were
mailed to the Court within 90 days of the date appearing on the
notices of deficiency but more than 90 days after the date that
the notices were actually mailed.
In denying the Commissioner's motions to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction in Loyd v. Commissioner, supra, and Jones v.
Commissioner, supra, we concluded that the taxpayers (or their
counsel) had reasonably relied upon the erroneous date appearing
on the notices of deficiency as the date of mailing.
Consequently, to avoid frustrating the statutory provisions
designed to afford taxpayers an opportunity for prepayment review
of the Commissioner's deficiency determinations, we decided to
treat the notices of deficiency as if they were mailed on the
date appearing on the notices.4
4 But cf. Meader v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-288 (the
date of mailing is the date appearing on U.S. Postal Service Form
3877 notwithstanding that the taxpayers may reasonably have
misread the date of mailing appearing on the notice of
deficiency).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011