- 8 -
In Malekzad v. Commissioner, supra, we explained that in
determining whether the 150-day period is applicable, we look at
both the date of mailing of the notice of deficiency and the date
on which the notice was received by the taxpayer. The crucial
inquiry is whether the taxpayer falls within the class of persons
that Congress intended to receive the benefit of the longer
period and whether the notice of deficiency served the notice
function that it was designed to serve. Id. at 970. The purpose
behind the enactment of the 150-day rule was the prevention of
hardships caused by delays in the receipt of a notice of
deficiency due to the taxpayer's absence from the United States
and the relatively slow international mails. Looper v.
Commissioner, 73 T.C. 690, 694 (1980).
On the facts in the instant case, petitioners were not
entitled to the 150-day period for filing their petition.
Petitioners were in the United States on the date the notice of
deficiency was mailed as well as on the date it was received.
Petitioner actually received the notice of deficiency 2 days
after it was mailed to the address reflected on the tax returns.
Thus, petitioner's absence from the country did not result in a
delay in the receipt of the notice. Lewy v. Commissioner, supra.
Since petitioner's absence from the country did not cause a
delay in the receipt of the notice of deficiency, petitioner's
only argument is that the absence caused a delay in preparation
and filing of the petition. In this regard, petitioners' counsel
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011