- 9 -
argues that petitioner did not understand the contents of the
notice of deficiency and, in the alternative, that respondent
failed to enclose a petition with the notice sent to petitioners.
We note at the outset that the basis for operation of the
90- or 150-day filing period set forth in section 6213(a) is not
dependent upon a taxpayer's understanding of the notice of
deficiency or upon the taxpayer's understanding of section
6213(a). Even if such were the case, petitioner contacted his
tax adviser immediately upon receipt of the notice of deficiency
and then left the country. Thus, while petitioner may not have
understood the entire contents of the notice of deficiency, he
clearly understood enough to immediately contact his tax adviser.
Petitioners failed to explain why there was no further
communication with the tax adviser with respect to this matter
during petitioner's absence from the United States. Further,
petitioners presented no evidence as to the role of petitioner
Diana Roberts, who remained in the United States during this
time. Petitioner did indicate that he communicated with his
office as well as with his wife periodically. Yet, there appears
to be a total absence of communication with respect to the need
to file a petition in response to the July 31, 1997, notice of
deficiency. Such neglect by petitioners and their tax adviser is
not a basis to invoke the 150-day rule.
Petitioners' alternative argument must also fail. There is
nothing in the statute or case law which would suggest that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011