Wilfred C. Rice and Martha J. Rice v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Wilfred C. RICE and Martha J. Rice, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
ORDER BEFORE EDWARDS, ENGEL and MERRITT, Circuit Judges.
Taxpayers appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court dismissing taxpayers’ petition for redetermination of deficiency. The Tax Court dismissed on grounds that the petition was mailed one day later under 26 U.S.C. § 6213 , which provides:
“Within 90 days . . .
after notice of deficiency authorized in § 6212 is mailed . . the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redeter-mination of the deficiency.” (Emphasis added.)
The notice of deficiency to taxpayers was dated and mailed on April 30, 1976, and taxpayers’ petition for redetermination of deficiency was mailed on July 30, 1976, one day late under the statute. Therefore, the Tax Court ruled that it was *556 without jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency and we affirm. See Gradsky v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 218 F.2d 703 (6th Cir. 1954);
DiViaio v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 176 U.S. App.D.C. 229, 232, 539 F.2d 231, 234 (1976). While the strict application of the 90-day rule may appear harsh on the surface, we should point out that taxpayers had an alternate means of challenging the Commissioner’s determination by paying the assessment and then suing for refund in the appropriate district court under 26 U.S.C. § 7422 .
While we understand taxpayers’ argument that the best evidence of the date of mailing of the notice of deficiency would be the postmarked letter, that evidence, if it still exists, is solely within the control and possession of taxpayers and is not part of the record. The Commissioner has offered the next best evidence of mailing, namely, two receipts for certified mail bearing the date April 30, 1976.
On the basis of our review of the briefs and the record on appeal we therefore find that the issue below is unsubstantial and does not require oral argument. Rule 9, Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Accordingly, it is ordered that the judgment of the Tax Court is hereby affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Erma M. Schrader v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Edmund G. And Kaatje R. Redman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Grisham v. United States
- Wayne Biggs and Melba Canegata Biggs v. Virgin Islands Board of Land Use Appeals. Appeal of Ten Kirkegade Corporation
- Williams v. Internal Revenue Service
- John E. Williams and Darlene Williams v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Most recent
- Naysha Oquendo v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
- Erma M. Schrader v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Rita D. Koulizos v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Biggs v. Virgin Islands Board of Land Use Appeals
- Wayne Biggs and Melba Canegata Biggs v. Virgin Islands Board of Land Use Appeals. Appeal of Ten Kirkegade Corporation
- Edmund G. And Kaatje R. Redman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.