- 22 -
needed. We may speculate that the Congress so acted in order to
simplify the Commissioner’s obligations, by not requiring the
Commissioner to make case-by-case determinations. It is
possible, of course, that the Congress decided to avoid case-by-
case determinations on the part of the Commissioner, and yet
require or permit the Court to make such determinations. This
seems to be contemplated in the majority’s opinion, see supra p.
13 note 5, and is stated in Judge Swift’s dissent, see infra
p. 28 . However, I do not find evidence of such a distinction in
either the statute or the legislative history.
In any event, it is clear that the Congress required the
Commissioner to provide the filing date deadline information on
each notice of deficiency, a rule broader than the problem that
gave rise to Congress’ concern.
III. The Shotgun Behind the Door
In section 3463 of the 1998 Act, the Congress imposed an
obligation on the Commissioner. The Congress contemplated that
the Commissioner might err in carrying out this obligation, by
putting the wrong filing deadline date on the notice of
deficiency. Accordingly, in section 3463 of the 1998 Act, the
Congress provided a consequence for such an error; the
Commissioner is not allowed to “sandbag”3 the taxpayer, even
3See, e.g., Barkins v. International Inns, Inc., 825 F.2d
905, 907 (5th Cir. 1987) (“waiting until the expiration of the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011