- 5 -
receive it “until later in time”. Under the statute, however, it
is the mailing and not the taxpayer’s receipt (which almost
inevitably will be later) of the Final Notice that starts the
running of the 90-day period. In any event, petitioner obviously
had received the Final Notice by December 10, 2004, when she
faxed at least part of it to Mr. Midgley.
Petitioner alleges that the Final Notice failed to state a
90-day time period for filing a petition in the Tax Court. The
evidence on this point is inconclusive.3 Section 6015, however,
contains no requirement that the notice of the Secretary’s final
determination of relief specify the time period in which the
taxpayer must petition the Tax Court.4 Accordingly, failure to
specify such a time period does not render the Final Notice
3 The only copy of the Final Notice that has been submitted
to the Court appears to be the partial copy that petitioner faxed
to Mr. Midgley on Dec. 10, 2004. At the hearing, Mr. Midgley
indicated that petitioner had failed to “fax both sides of the
page. Apparently, she wasn’t aware that there were two sides to
the page”.
4 By contrast, in notices of deficiency mailed after Dec.
31, 1998, the IRS is required to specify the date determined by
the IRS as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition
with the Tax Court. Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3463(a), 112 Stat. 767.
Respondent’s failure to provide the petition date as required,
however, has not been construed to render the notice of
deficiency invalid. Rochelle v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 356
(2001), affd. 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002); Smith v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 489 (2000), affd. 275 F.3d 912 (10th Cir.
2001).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011