- 5 -
to pay the filing fee, and (3) the envelope bearing the petition.
Accordingly, it appears that the notice of determination was
mailed to petitioner at his last known address. See sec.
6330(a)(2)(C). Regardless, petitioner actually received the
notice of determination no later than Monday, October 28, 2002,
which was sufficient time to file a timely petition with this
Court, as evidenced by the fact that petitioner purchased the
Postal Money Order on November 13, 2002. Cf. Mulvania v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67-68 (1983) (an erroneously addressed
notice of deficiency is nevertheless valid if the taxpayer
receives actual notice of the Commissioner’s determination in a
timely fashion; i.e., without prejudicial delay); Estate of
Greenwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-98 (same). Therefore,
under these circumstances, the sole issue for decision is whether
the petition was timely filed.
The record in this case demonstrates that the petition was
not filed within the 30-day period prescribed in section
6330(d)(1)(A). Here we compute the 30-day period by reference to
the date appearing on the notice of determination (Monday,
October 21, 2002) rather than the earlier date on which the
notice was deposited with the Postal Service (Friday, October 18,
2002). See Loyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-172 (date
appearing on the notice of deficiency was the date of mailing for
purposes of section 6213(a)); Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011