- 9 - actually mailed on an earlier date. In other words, the date appearing on the notice of deficiency was deemed to be the date of mailing for purposes of section 6213(a). See Lundy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-14 (discussing Loyd and Jones in the context of the Court’s jurisprudence regarding its jurisdiction). Respondent seeks to distinguish Loyd v. Commissioner, supra, and Jones v. Commissioner, supra, by relying on an earlier case, Meader v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-288, wherein the Court granted the Commissioner’s jurisdictional motion and dismissed the case on the ground that the petition had not been filed within 90 days of the date of mailing of the notice of deficiency. Respondent argues that the date appearing on the notices of deficiency in Jones and Loyd was “clearly legible”, whereas the date appearing on the notice in Meader was “smudged”, so that the taxpayer was not entitled to rely on it. In Meader v. Commissioner, supra, the notice of deficiency was mailed on April 6, 1981. The petition was not timely filed as measured by that date. However, the petition was filed within 90 days of April 8, 1981, and the taxpayers argued that the date stamped at the top of the notice of deficiency was April 8, 1981, rather than April 6, 1981. The Court acknowledged that the date stamped on the notice was “somewhat smudged, and a cursory examination of it might create the mistaken belief that the datePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: March 27, 2008