- 25 -
let the notice languish and “he took responsible steps in an
attempt to fulfill requisites to contest the Commissioner’s
determination in the Tax Court.” Looper v. Commissioner, supra
at 699.
Applying this standard in the context of a notice of
determination under section 6015,14 we find that petitioner’s
ability to timely file the petition was prejudiced by the
improperly addressed notice. At the hearing, petitioner stated
that during the relevant time period she was busy attending to
her injured husband and did not know when she received the notice
of determination. The only evidence of a specific date shows
that the notice was received by January 27, 2001, which was the
14While we dispose of respondent’s argument by applying
caselaw dealing with jurisdictional requirements under sec. 6213,
we note that the statutory language in sec. 6015(e)(1)(A) is
different in several respects, including the fact that sec.
6015(e)(1)(A) specifically counts the 90-day period from the date
the notice of determination is mailed to the “taxpayer’s last
known address”. In contrast, sec. 6213 counts the 90-day filing
period from the date the notice of deficiency was mailed with no
reference to the date the notice was mailed to the taxpayer’s
last known address.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011