- 7 -
notice of determination with sufficient time to file a timely
petition with this Court.3
Although, section 6330(d) does not specify the means by
which the Commissioner is required to give notice of a
determination made under section 6330, we have held that use of
the method authorized in section 6212(a) and (b) for notices of
deficiency is sufficient. Weber v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 258,
261-262 (2004). Thus, if a notice of determination is sent by
certified or registered mail to the taxpayer at his last known
address, it is sufficient and valid for purposes of commencing
the 30-day period in which the petition must be filed, regardless
of whether the taxpayer actually receives the notice in time to
petition the Court. Id. at 262-263.
3 Petitioner argues in the alternative that we should extend
the period for him to file his petition under Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b). Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be
instructive in the interpretation and application of our Rules,
see, e.g., Evans Publg., Inc. v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 242, 249
(2002); Estate of Fulmer v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 302, 309
(1984), this Court is governed by its own Rules, see sec. 7453.
This Court's counterpart to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) is Rule 25(c).
See Explanatory Note to Rule 25(c), 60 T.C. 1080. Rule 25(c)
provides that the Court "in its discretion may make longer or
shorter any period provided by these Rules." (Emphasis added.)
Rule 25(c) then distinguishes the period "fixed by statute"
within which to file a petition with the Court to redetermine a
deficiency or a liability, and provides that such periods "cannot
be extended by the Court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) does not address
time periods fixed by statute and thus has little relevance here.
Consistent with Rule 25(c), we lack authority to extend the
period for filing a petition fixed by sec. 6330(d)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011