holding that “[i]f the notice of deficiency is found to be invalid, we must dismiss in petitioner’s favor regardless of whether the taxpayer’s petition was timely filed.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “[i]f the notice of deficiency is found to be invalid, we must dismiss in petitioner’s favor regardless of whether the taxpayer’s petition was timely filed.”
- " 'The Committee believes that taxpayers should receive assistance in determining the time period within which they must file a petition in the Tax Court and that taxpayers should be able to rely on the computation of that period by the IRS.' ”
- “There are two prerequisites to this Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency: (1) The issuance of a valid notice of deficiency by the Commissioner; and (2) the timely filing of a petition with, the Court by the taxpayer.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Swift, J., dissenting: I generally agree with the analysis set forth in Judge Foley’s dissent and with his suggested conclusion that the petition herein be treated as timely.
In this case, however, I would not conclude, as a matter of law, that respondent’s failure to provide in the notice of deficiency the specific due date for filing a Tax Court petition automatically provides the taxpayer an unlimited period of time to do so. Respondent’s failure to provide the due date should extend the deadline for the filing of a Tax Court petition for a reasonable period of time based on the facts and circumstances of each case and based on the intent and conduct of the taxpayer.
In the current case there is no evidence of intentional mischief by petitioner, and — in the realities of the business world — 56 days (including weekends and holidays), particularly in the absence of a due date provided by respondent, is but a blink. Herein, I would conclude that the petition is timely.