John S. Burke - Page 8
- 7 -
period within which they were obliged to file a petition for
redetermination with the Tax Court and that (2) those taxpayers
could rely on the computation of that period by the Commissioner.
S. Rept. 105-174, at 90 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 537, 626; see H.
Rept. 105-364 (Part 1), at 71 (1997), 1998-3 C.B. 373, 443;
see also Rochelle v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 356, 362-363 (2001),
affd. per curiam 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002).
Thus, if the Commissioner makes a mistake in computing the
filing period by overstating it, the last sentence of section
6213(a) serves to enlarge the period of time within which a
taxpayer would otherwise have to file a petition for
redetermination with this Court. On the other hand, the
Commissioner’s mistake in computing the filing period by
understating it does not serve to shorten the period of time
prescribed by law within which a petition must be filed. Cf.
Bush v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-33 (notice of deficiency
specifying July 4 as the last date to file a petition ignored the
provisions of section 7503 regarding time for performance of acts
where the last day falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday),
affd. 51 Fed. Appx. 422 (4th Cir. 2002).
In short, the 90th day after March 24, 2007, was Friday,
June 22, 2007, and by no administrative fiat in the notice of
deficiency may respondent make that day any earlier.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: March 27, 2008