John S. Burke - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         
          Date of the Notice of Deficiency                                            
               We turn now to respondent’s first argument, i.e., that the             
          notice of deficiency is dated March 22, 2007, and not March 24,             
          2007, as petitioner contends.                                               
               At the hearing on respondent’s motion, petitioner produced             
          the original notice of deficiency, and the Court examined it.2              
          The date of the notice is reasonably legible and it certainly               
          looks like March 24, 2007.  However, in using a magnifying glass            
          and a high-powered halogen light to examine the date, it appears            
          that respondent originally stamped the notice March 21, 2007, and           
          then restamped it March 22, 2007.  This interpretation is                   
          consistent with the Declaration of respondent’s employee who was            
          responsible for the mailing of the notice.                                  
               The stamp-over of the date on the notice of deficiency had             
          no effect on the legibility of either the month or the year or              
          the first digit of the day.  However, the stamp-over of the “1”             
          and the “2” of the second digit of the day ended up producing               
          what clearly looks like a “4” to the unaided eye.                           
               In Loyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-172, and Jones v.             
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-171, the Court held that the                  
          taxpayers were entitled to rely on the date stamped on the notice           
          of deficiency as to its mailing date, even though the notice was            

               2  Petitioner did not retain the envelope containing the               
          notice of deficiency, and there is nothing in the record to                 
          indicate whether the envelope in which the notice was mailed bore           
          a postmark.                                                                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008