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