-10-
We conclude our survey of the case law in this area with a
brief mention of the line of cases involving undated notices of
deficiency. See Hurst, Anthony & Watkins v. Commissioner, 1
B.T.A. 26 (1924); and Casqueira v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-
428. We have uniformly analyzed these cases by applying the
normal rule that the date of mailing is the date that the notice
of deficiency is actually placed in the mail. Cf. Donoghue v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-276 (90-day period computed from
actual date of mailing where notice of deficiency was actually
mailed March 18, 1976, but erroneously dated March 18, 1975).
Respondent contends that the date that the notice of
deficiency was actually mailed in this case is controlling for
purposes of computing the 90-day period for filing a petition
with the Court, and that it was unreasonable for petitioner to
rely on any other date in filing his petition. Relying on cases
such as Loyd v. Commissioner, supra, and Jones v. Commissioner,
supra, petitioner counters that it has been the Court's practice
to permit a taxpayer to use the best date available under the
circumstances in computing the 90-day period for filing a
petition with the Court. Because the notice of deficiency that
he received was incorrectly dated, petitioner contends that he
should be permitted to rely on the date that he actually received
the notice of deficiency (as the best date available to him) in
computing the 90-day period for filing a petition with the Court.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011