holding that the applicable statutory mailing requirement is not “a vehicle whereby an appeal could be dismissed . . . when the denial of such an 20 appeal would be manifestly unjust to the taxpayer who was never informed of the mailing date”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the applicable statutory mailing requirement is not “a vehicle whereby an appeal could be dismissed . . . when the denial of such an 20 appeal would be manifestly unjust to the taxpayer who was never informed of the mailing date”
- explaining that "[k]nowledge of a decision's mailing date is essential to the taxpayer" and indicating that the administrative agency had a duty to advise the taxpayer of the date of mailing (emphasis in original)
- observing that, if a taxpayer does not receive notification of the mailing date of the agency decision that commences the appeal period, he or she “can have no reliable basis for knowing the number of days remaining in which to file a petition for review”
- noting that while it was “reasonable” for the legislature to specify the appeal period commenced on the date of mailing, this implied a duty on the part of the Department of Revenue to advise the taxpayer of the date of mailing
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Julia Ribaudo Senior Services v. Department of Public Welfare, 600 Pa. 641 (2009)
DPW asserts the Commonwealth Court erred in applying Schmidt to this case, as it claims Schmidt is readily distinguishable.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
Mr. Justice Roberts concurs in the result, believing that the mailing of a dated notice of reassessment three days after the mailing of an undated notice of decision created an ambiguity which on this record should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.