- 10 -
their 1999 return. Because petitioners did not petition the
Court in response to the notice, the assessment period did not
expire until September 15, 2003.4 See sec. 6503(a)(1). Thus,
the assessment of tax on August 4, 2003, was timely.
As discussed above, petitioners also wish to contest the
adjustments made in the notice of deficiency. Respondent’s
refusal to consider this issue was an abuse of discretion. See
sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). The Court therefore will issue an order
setting this case for further trial on the issue of the
underlying tax liability.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued.
4 Three years after the due date of petitioners’ 1999 return
was Apr. 17, 2003. See supra note 3. Although 150 days after
that date was Sunday, Sept. 14, 2003, the assessment period was
extended until the next business day. See sec. 7503; see also
Orrock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-293 (holding that sec.
7503 applies to the acts of either a taxpayer or the
Commissioner); sec. 301.7503-1(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: November 10, 2007