-11-
Our survey of the case law in this area shows that the best
evidence of the date of mailing of a notice of deficiency is the
postmark, if there is one, on the envelope bearing the notice of
deficiency. See Traxler v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. at 99, modified
63 T.C. 534 (1975). In the absence of such a postmark, the date
of mailing of a notice of deficiency is the date that the
Commissioner places the notice of deficiency in the mail,
although an exception may be made where the taxpayer has been
misled or has reasonably relied to his detriment upon some later
date appearing on the deficiency notice itself. Petitioner does
not contend that he was misled or that he reasonably relied upon
another date of mailing. To the contrary, petitioner asserts
that, because of uncertainty as to the correct date of mailing,
he was entitled to treat the date that he received the notice of
deficiency as the date of mailing. Unfortunately for petitioner,
we have previously rejected the proposition that the date of
mailing contemplated in section 6213(a) can be equated with the
date that a taxpayer actually receives a notice of deficiency.
See Traxler v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. at 98-99. We see no reason
to abandon that position under the circumstances presented.5
5 Although the date that a taxpayer actually receives a
notice of deficiency generally is not treated as the date of
mailing under sec. 6213(a), some courts have used the date of
actual receipt to begin the running of the 90-day period for
timely filing a petition. These situations did not involve a
question of the date of mailing, but rather whether the
Commissioner sent the notice to the taxpayer's last known
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011