- 8 -
Petitioner concedes that he received the deficiency notice
in late April 1996, after the notice was mailed on April 9, 1996.
Actual receipt of a notice of deficiency by the taxpayer, without
prejudicial delay, eliminates the need for us to determine
whether the notice was mailed to the taxpayer's last known
address. Mulvania v. Commissioner, supra. Accordingly, we need
not decide whether notice of address changes to the U.S. District
Court's office of pretrial services was clear and concise
notification to respondent of petitioner's change of address.
Rather, we consider whether or not there was prejudicial delay in
petitioner's receipt of the deficiency notice in late April 1996.
Assuming that petitioner received the notice of deficiency
on the last day of the month, April 30, 1996, he would have had
at least 69 days remaining in the 90-day filing period to file a
petition. We have held that receipt of a notice of deficiency
that was incorrectly addressed with 69 or fewer days before the
expiration of the filing period is not prejudicial. Bonty v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-372 (69 days remaining); Bowers v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-609 (69 days remaining); George v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-147 (52 days remaining); Loftin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-322 (30 days remaining). However,
8 days remaining in the filing period when the notice is received
has been held to be insufficient time to file a petition. Sicker
v. Commissioner, 815 F.2d 1400, 1401 (11th Cir. 1987); see Looper
v. Commissioner, supra at 699 (17 days remaining was
prejudicial).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011