- 5 -
While we agree with respondent’s conclusion, we reject his
contention relating to section 7522. The petition date is not
mentioned in section 7522, and, thus, this section is not
determinative.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, to which an
appeal would lie, has stated that a “‘notice of deficiency that
is actually received without delay prejudicial to the taxpayer’s
ability to petition the Tax Court is sufficient to toll the
statute of limitations as of the date of mailing.’” Scheidt v.
Commissioner, 967 F.2d 1448, 1450-1451 (10th Cir. 1992)(quoting
Borgman v. Commissioner, 888 F.2d 916, 918 (1st Cir. 1989), affg.
T.C. Memo 1984-503), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-235; see secs.
6501(a), 6503(a)(1).
Respondent mailed, and petitioners received, the notice
prior to the expiration of the period of limitations. Moreover,
petitioners filed a petition in a timely manner. We hold that
where respondent failed to put the petition date on the notice,
and petitioners nevertheless received the notice and filed a
petition in a timely manner, such notice was valid.
We note that while Congress, in section 3463(a) of the Act,
provided that the IRS “shall include” the petition date on each
notice, Congress failed to prescribe what consequences result
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011