- 26 -
date written on the petition.15 This date, upon which respondent
relies, was 88 days after respondent mailed the notice of
determination and only 2 days prior to the last day for filing a
petition.
Petitioner initiated and has diligently pursued relief from
joint liability. There is no evidence that petitioner let the
notice languish or otherwise failed to take responsible steps to
contest respondent’s determination in this Court. Therefore, on
the basis of the evidence in the record, we find that the delay
caused by the improperly addressed notice was prejudicial to
petitioner’s ability to timely, by January 29, 2001, file her
petition.
IV. Conclusion
We hold that the petition in the instant case was timely
under section 6015(e)(1)(A) and that we have jurisdiction to
determine the appropriate relief available to petitioner under
15In Sicker v. Commissioner, 815 F.2d 1400 (11th Cir. 1987),
revg. and remanding an Order of this Court, the petition was
dated 8 days prior to the expiration of the 90-day filing period
but postmarked 1 day after expiration of the 90-day period. The
court held that receipt of a notice of deficiency with only 8
days remaining in the filing period was not sufficient time to
permit the taxpayer to file a petition. Id. at 1401 (holding
that, as a matter of law, 8 days cannot be considered ample time
in which to petition for redetermination).
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011