- 17 -
the impression that the late filing of his petition was a product
of his conscious resolve to test the validity of the notice, or
even to allege that he was confused by the notice, I don’t
believe he’s entitled to a ticket of admission to the Tax Court.
I’m therefore comfortable in making our usual comment that he’s
not without a remedy--he can pay the deficiency, and claim and
sue for a refund, see, e.g., Zimmerman v. Commissioner, 105 T.C.
220, 226 n. 4 (1995) (citing McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C.
138, 142 (1970)). In any event, attorneys, who are
professionally charged with the responsibility generally of
counting days for statute of limitations purposes–-not just in
tax cases--should be held to a higher standard than other pro se
petitioners. Cf. Rendina v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-392;
Sisson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-545; deRochemont v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-600, citing Whitaker v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-418 (citing Fihe v. Commissioner,
265 F.2d 511, 513 (9th Cir. 1958), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of
this Court)).
All this leaves for another day the question of what to do
with the case of a late filing pro se lay petitioner, who might
be suffering from cognitive deficit, dyscalculia, or other
disability. The resulting residual uncertainty about what we
would do in such a case should help to stiffen the Commissioner’s
resolve to achieve 100-percent compliance in the future.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011