- 7 -
We agree with respondent that “petitioners’ allegations that they
relied upon the second date stamp of ‘February 16, 2002' are
self-serving and lack merit when viewed under the totality of
circumstances”.
Moreover, statutory periods are jurisdictional and cannot be
extended. McCune v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 114, 117 (2002);
Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). See also In re
Smith v. United States, 96 F.3d 800, 802 (6th Cir. 1996), in
which the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the court to
which an appeal from this decision would lie) noted that it has
been “rather consistent in denying ‘equitable’ pleas to disregard
the strict timing rules of the Tax * * * [Code]”, and United
States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997), in which the Supreme
Court refused to permit equitable tolling of the limitations
period on income tax refund claims. Here, there is no basis to
even consider whether equitable relief might be appropriate. The
notices were clearly dated December 18, 2001, and were received
by petitioners on December 20, 2001. Petitioners could have
resolved any confusion that might have been caused by the
February 16, 2002, date stamp simply by contacting the Internal
Revenue Service upon their receipt of the notices, or during the
ensuing 28-day period, at the contact telephone number provided
on the notices themselves. Their failure to do so has resulted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011