- 5 -
F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42,
57 (1983).
A notice of deficiency will be valid if the taxpayer
actually receives the notice in sufficient time to file a timely
petition without prejudicial delay. See Clodfelter v.
Commissioner, 527 F.2d 754, 757 (9th Cir. 1975), affg. 57 T.C.
102 (1971); Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 68 (1983).
“Providing the taxpayer with actual notice of the deficiency in a
timely manner is the essence of the statutory scheme.” Mulvania
v. Commissioner, supra at 68. We have held that a taxpayer is
not prejudiced if he received the notice and had 69 days
remaining in the 90-day period to file a petition. See Bonty v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-372; Bowers v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1991-609; Loftin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-322 (30
days remaining).
Respondent mailed the notice of deficiency by certified mail
to petitioners on October 6, 1999. Petitioners actually received
the notice of deficiency on October 23, 1999, 17 days after the
notice was mailed, allowing petitioners 73 days to file a
petition in this Court. Petitioner immediately forwarded the
notice to Mr. Vebeliunas, and a timely petition was filed with
this Court. Accordingly, since petitioners received the notice
of deficiency and filed a timely petition with this Court, we
conclude the notice of deficiency is valid. As a result of this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011