- 17 -
extension. Petitioner claims that the stamp, which indicates the
date that respondent received petitioner’s return, is illegible
and not reliable. Petitioner claims that, if the Court upholds
the imposition of the addition to tax, a rate of 10 percent is
appropriate.
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the received date stamped on
petitioner’s 1995 return is legible and indicates that respondent
received petitioner’s 1995 return on December 2, 1996. There is
nothing in the record that supports petitioner’s claim that the
received date is not reliable.
The notice of deficiency states that petitioner’s return was
due on September 15, 1996. The record does not contain an
application for extension of time to file petitioner’s 1995
return. In the absence of such application or other evidence of
the due date of petitioner’s 1995 return, we accept the due date
of September 15, 1996, listed in the notice of deficiency.
The notice of deficiency lists a rate of 15 percent for the
addition to tax. A rate of 15 percent is appropriate for a
taxpayer who filed a return 3 months late. Sec. 6651(a)(1).
Since we conclude that petitioner’s 1995 return was due on
September 15, 1996, and was actually filed on December 2, 1996,
the appropriate rate for the addition to tax is that associated
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011