- 30 -
provide any specified date is tantamount to providing that there
is no deadline. Accordingly, the petition is timely.
The majority asserts that “Respondent’s position finds
further support in the legislative history”. Majority op. p. 11.
Again, I disagree. Assuming arguendo that the statute is not
clear on its face, the legislative history, on the contrary,
bolsters petitioner’s contention. In setting forth the rationale
for the amendment to section 6213(a), the Senate Finance
Committee report (report) states: “The Committee believes that
taxpayers should receive assistance in determining the time
period within which they must file a petition in the Tax Court
and that taxpayers should be able to rely on the computation of
that period by the IRS.” S. Rept. 105-174, at 90 (1998), 1998-3
C.B. 537, 626 (emphasis added). Focusing on the statement that
“taxpayers should be able to rely on the computation of that
period by the IRS”, the majority emphasizes that petitioner did
not contend that he detrimentally relied on the information in
the notice and that the theory of detrimental reliance is not
applicable in this case because no misleading information was
provided. I agree that the theory of detrimental reliance is not
applicable. Neither the statute nor the legislative history
imposes such a requirement. While the report provides that
“taxpayers should be able to rely on the computation of that
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