Teel v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 60204.
| Decision Date | 27 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 60204. |
| Citation | 27 T.C. 375 |
| Parties | THERON C. TEEL AND LYNN W. TEEL, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Thomas E. Tyre, Esq., for the respondent.
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY— REGISTERED MAILING— LAST KNOWN ADDRESS— RECEIPT BY PETITIONER— TIMELY FILING OF PETITIONER. The Commissioner mailed the notice of deficiency by registered mail on August 9, 1955, to the petitioners at their correct and last known address. The post office, upon delivery of that letter to that address, found neither petitioner there to sign the registry receipt. It left a notice and later sent another notifying the petitioners that a registered letter was being held at the post office. Later, at the request of the petitioner, the letter was delivered to his office and the receipt signed by him on August 23, 1955. The mailing of the notice on August 9, 1955, started the 90-day period within which the petitioners could file a petition with this Court, and the filing of a petition on November 18, 1955, did not give this Court jurisdiction.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss this proceeding for lack of jurisdiction because the petition, which was filed November 18, 1955, was not filed within 90 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency as required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The only dispute is with respect to the beginning of the 90-day period, that is, the date when the notice of deficiency must be regarded as having been mailed by registered mail. The parties have filed a stipulation of facts which is adopted as the findings of fact.
The Commissioner contends that the mailing by registered mail in accordance with the statutory requirement was on August 9, 1955, and if that contention is sound, then the petition was obviously not filed within the period allowed by the statute. The position of the petitioners is that the filing period should not begin until August 22, 1955.
Section 6212 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 provides that if the Secretary or his delegate determines that there is a deficiency in income tax, he is authorized to send a notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer by registered mail. It further provides that the notice of deficiency shall be sufficient under the law if mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address. Section 6213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 limits the time for filing a petition with the Tax Court in a case like this to 90 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency authorized by section 6212.
The Commissioner determined a deficiency in income tax in this case for the year 1952 and mailed the statutory notice by registered mail from Salt Lake City, Utah, on August 9, 1955. It was addressed to the petitioners at 2340 Oneida Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, the address shown on their return for 1952. It was still their address at the time they filed their petition in this case. The parties have stipulated that the Commissioner mailed the notice of deficiency by registered mail to the petitioners at their last known address. The postman did not find either of the petitioners at the address shown on the envelope when he attempted to deliver the letter on August 10, 1955, and, consequently, could not obtain their signature on the slip provided for the registered letter, so, in accordance with postal regulations, he left a notice at the residence that a piece of registered mail was being held for the addressees at the post office and returned the registered letter to the post office. The postal authorities mailed a second similar notice to the petitioners on August 15, 1955, and the fact that two such notices were left at the address of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hallmark Research Collective v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
... ... 1957) ... (Johnsen, J., concurring in part); Teel v ... Commissioner , ... 248 F.2d 749, 751 (10th Cir. 1957), ... numbered in the Tax Court docket record of this case, and a ... pinpoint citation therein refers to ... ...
-
Collective v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...250 F.2d 170, 175 (5th Cir. 1957) (Johnsen, J., concurring in part); Teel v. Commissioner, 248 F.2d 749, 751 (10th Cir. 1957), aff'g 27 T.C. 375 (1956); DeWelles v. United States, 378 F.2d 37, 39 (9th 8. The Tax Reform Act of 1969 When Congress established the Tax Court as an Article I cour......
-
Barrash v. Commissioner
...on this issue an unreported order of this Court; Teel v. Commissioner 57-2 USTC ¶ 9998, 248 F.2d 749, 751 (10th Cir. 1957), affg. Dec. 22,040 27 T.C. 375 (1956); Roszkos v. Commissioner Dec. 43,824, 87 T.C. 1255, 1266 (1986), on appeal (9th Cir., July 14, 1987); cf. Frieling v. Commissioner......
-
McKaig v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of McKaig)
...212 F.2d 458 (C.A.D.C. 1954),3 affirming an order of this Court; and Teel v. Commissioner, 248 F.2d 749 (C.A. 10, 1957), affirming 27 T.C. 375. We conclude that the petition filed on August 1, 1968, was timely and that the respondent's motion to dismiss should be and is denied. An appropria......