- 7 -
Read in context, it is evident that the August 23, 1999,
letter was not intended to serve as a notice of deficiency but
rather was issued to inform petitioner that respondent would not
abate the assessment entered against petitioner for the 1996
taxable year. Petitioner had defaulted with respect to the
notice of deficiency dated October 28, 1998, and respondent had
entered an assessment against petitioner for the tax and addition
to tax set forth in the notice. Thereafter, petitioner's counsel
had written to the Atlanta Service Center in an effort to have
the assessment abated. Against this background, personnel within
the Atlanta Service Center had, in their discretion, given
petitioner a further opportunity to demonstrate that the
assessment for 1996 was incorrect. The letter, which informs
petitioner that his abatement claim was rejected, simply does not
purport to determine a deficiency. Although the letter contains
language suggesting that petitioner would be permitted to contest
the denial of his claim in the Tax Court, the erroneous inclusion
of such language in the letter does not convert the letter into a
notice of deficiency.1
1 Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Aug. 23,
1999, letter constitutes a notice of deficiency, the petition was
not timely filed. In particular, the petition arrived at the
Court in an envelope bearing a private postage meter postmark
date of Nov. 19, 1999, and a U.S. Postal Service postmark date of
Nov. 24, 1999. For purposes of the timely mailing/timely filing
provisions contained in sec. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii), Proced. &
Admin. Regs., the U.S. Postal Service postmark date of Nov. 24,
1999, is controlling for purposes of determining whether the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011