Rogers v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 1862-71.

• Decision Date: 29 February 1972
• Docket Number: Docket No. 1862-71.
• Citation: 57 T.C. 711
• Parties: JAMES A. ROGERS AND PATRICIA H. ROGERS, PETITIONERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT
• Court: U.S. Tax Court

57 T.C. 711

JAMES A. ROGERS AND PATRICIA H. ROGERS, PETITIONERS

v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT

Docket No. 1862-71.

United States Tax Court

Filed February 29, 1972.

Thomas S. Loop, for the petitioners.

Andrew S. Coxe and Bruce A. McArdle, for the respondent.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue attempted to mail notice of deficiency to petitioners' correct address outside the United States by certified mail 1 day before expiration of time for making timely assessment. Notice of deficiency was returned to sender by Post Office because certified mail cannot be sent outside the United States. Commissioner placed notice of deficiency and original envelope in another envelope and delivered it to the Post Office for mailing by registered mail 5 days after time for mailing notice of deficiency. Held: Notice of deficiency not timely. Statute of limitations, pleaded by petitioners in petition, bars assessment and collection of tax.

OPINION

DRENNEN, Judge:

Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' income tax in the amounts of $8,937.26, $4,888.14, and $10,261.77 for the years 1964, 1965, and 1966, respectively, and additions to tax under section 6653(a) for those years in the amounts of $446.86, $244.41, and $513.09, respectively.

Petitioners were husband and wife residing in Grand Valley, Colo., at the time the petition was filed. They filed joint Federal income tax returns for the years 1964, 1965, and 1966 with the Director of Internal Operations, Washington, D.C.

This case was heard on petitioners' motion to strike respondent's answer on the ground that assessment and collection of the proposed deficiencies is barred by the statute of limitations because the notice of deficiency was not mailed to petitioners within the statutory period.

Respondent audited petitioners' income tax returns for the years 1964, 1965, and 1966 and proposed certain adjustments increasing petitioners' taxes for those years. Consents extending the time within which respondent could assess the proposed deficiencies to December 31, 1970, were executed by the parties.

A notice of deficiency dated December 30, 1970, addressed to petitioners at their correct address in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, C.A., was delivered by respondent to the Post Office for mailing by certified mail on December 30, 1970. The envelope in which the notice of deficiency was placed bears the notation ‘Certified Mail No. 175,829’ but has no postmark thereon. It also has stamped thereon ‘Return to Sender, Certified Mail Limited to Domestic Mail Only.’ In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope there is stamped the date ‘Jan. 5, 1971.’

Respondent offered in evidence a certified mail receipt dated December 30, 1970, which has listed thereon an article bearing the certified mail No. 175,829, which was addressed to petitioners at their correct address in Honduras. This particular entry on the receipt is crossed out and a notation appears ‘Returned 1/5/70 (sic) and mailed Registered same day.’

Petitioners received the notice of deficiency in the above-described unopened envelope which was contained in an outer envelope, properly addressed to petitioners at their Honduras address, which was sent by registered mail and bears a postmark dated January 5, 1971.

Petitioners filed a timely petition with this Court in which they pleaded the bar of the statute of limitations because the notice of deficiency was not mailed within the statutory period, as extended, and alternatively contested the proposed adjustments in the notice of deficiency. Respondent's answer pleaded as defense to the statute of limitations that the statute had been extended by the parties to December 31, 1970, and that the notice of deficiency ‘was issued on December 30, 1970.’ Petitioner thereupon moved to strike respondent's answer, as related above.

While it is not certain from the evidence, apparently what happened (and we will so assume for purposes of this opinion) was that respondent delivered the notice of deficiency enclosed in the original envelope, along with other mail, to the Post Office on December 30, 1970, for mailing by certified mail as was customary. A postal employee apparently discovered on January 5, 1971, that the document could not be mailed overseas by certified mail and notified respondent. Respondent then placed the original envelope, unopened, in an outer envelope properly addressed to petitioners and again delivered it to the Post Office on January 5, 1971, for mailing by registered mail.

The legal question raised by petitioners' motion is whether the issuance of the statutory notice under date of December 30, 1970, and delivery thereof in a properly addressed envelope to the Post Office on the same day for mailing by certified mail, which is not permitted for overseas mail, suspended the running of the statute of limitations. We conclude that it did not.

Section 6501(a), I.R.C. 1954, provides that the amount of any tax imposed by this title shall be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed.

Section 6501(c)(4) provides for an extension of the time allowed for assessment during a period consented to in writing by the parties. Section 6503(a)(1) provides that the running of the period of limitations provided in section 6501 for making assessments of income tax ‘shall (after the mailing of a notice under section 6212(a)) be suspended’ for the period during which the respondent is prohibited from making an assessment and 60 days thereafter. Section 6212(a) authorizes respondent to ‘send’ a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer by ...