-12-
The notice of deficiency was delivered by the U.S. Postal
Service to petitioner on Saturday, March 30, 1996. Given that
the date of delivery is known, it follows that the notice of
deficiency must have been mailed at least one day prior to its
delivery to, and receipt by, petitioner. When petitioner
received the notice of deficiency on March 30, 1996 (delivered by
the U.S. Postal Service) it would have been unreasonable for him
to assume a mailing date later than March 29, 1996, the date
prior to delivery. In fact, March 29, 1996, was the actual date
of mailing, and petitioner has failed to allege or show that the
envelope containing the notice was not postmarked on that date.
The date on the face of the notice, being a full year later than
the date of mailing, was so patently the result of clerical error
that petitioner makes no claim of detrimental reliance. The fact
that petitioner's counsel, Eric W. Lundy, did not sign and hand-
deliver the petition to the Court until Friday June 28, 1996, 91
days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency, was not
(...continued)
address. See Gaw v. Commissioner, 45 F.3d 461, 468 (D.C. Cir.
1995), revg. T.C. Memo. 1993-379 (90-day filing period is
computed from date taxpayers actually received notice of
deficiency where the Commissioner failed to exercise due
diligence in determining the taxpayers' correct address); Powell
v. Commissioner, 958 F.2d 53, 57 (4th Cir. 1992) (90-day filing
period is computed from date taxpayers actually received the
Commissioner's final notice of intent to levy). In both Gaw and
Powell, the taxpayers did not receive the notice of deficiency in
time to file a petition within 90 days of its mailing. In the
instant case, petitioner received the notice of deficiency the
day after it was mailed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011