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
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: March 27, 2008