- 5 -
the United States. Subsequently, petitioner picked up the notice
of deficiency at his local post office on April 7, 1997.
Petitioner was temporarily absent from the United States and
was delayed approximately 19 days2 in receiving the notice of
deficiency. See Estate of Krueger v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 667
(1960). Petitioner did not have the full 90-day period for
considering the matter after the mailing of the deficiency notice
and, as noted above, in accordance with the purpose of the
statute as well as the terms of section 6213(a), the 150-day
period is applicable here. See Levy v. Commissioner, supra at
231. Respondent's argument that petitioner had sufficient time
to file the notice of deficiency within the 90-day period after
his return to the United States and, therefore, is not eligible
for the extended 150-day period, is unpersuasive under the
circumstances here. Petitioner's absence from the United States
was not an "ephemeral one, a weekend trip" and consequently the
"practical" test set forth Malekzad v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 963,
970-972 (1981), is inapplicable here.
Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to avail himself of the
150-day filing period. Respondent's motion is denied.
An appropriate order will
be issued.
2 Petitioner returned to the United States 15 days after the
notice of deficiency was mailed but, acting reasonably under the
circumstances of his lengthy travel, did not pick up his mail at
the post office until 19 days after the mailing of the notice.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: May 25, 2011