- 17 -
evidentiary hearing, petitioners contend that the 90-day period
for filing their petition should start on May 13, 1998, the date
of the letter from respondent’s Taxpayer Advocate which included
a copy of the notice of deficiency.
Petitioners did not include this contention in their
posthearing brief. We treat this as, in effect, petitioners’
abandonment of this contention. See subpars. (4) and (5) of Rule
151(e); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 226, 344
(1991); Money v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 46, 48 (1987). In any
event, the general rule is that the date of receipt, if any, is
irrelevant for purposes of applying the 90-day requirement. See
Wilson v. Commissioner, 564 F.2d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir. 1977),
affg. in part and dismissing in part unreported orders of this
Court. We have not found anything in the record that would cause
us to conclude that the instant case presents any exception to
this general rule.
Under section 6213(a) and Rule 25(a)(1), the first day of
the 90-day period is October 23, 1997, the day after the notice
of deficiency was mailed to petitioners. The petition was filed
on July 24, 1998, long after the end of the 90-day period.
D. Conclusions
Respondent sent a valid notice of deficiency to petitioners.
Petitioners did not file a timely petition. Because the petition
was not filed timely, this Court does not have jurisdiction over
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011