Cataldo v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held: 1. The alleged failure of the respondent to provide the petitioners a hearing before the Appellate Division did not render the notice of deficiency invalid. 2. The respondent has proved by competent evidence the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Simpson, Judge:
On October 16,1972, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Hearings were held on such motion, and the parties have submitted memorandums of law in support of their positions.
The petition in this case was received by the Tax Court on August 14, 1972. It was contained in an envelope bearing a postmark date of August 10,1972.
Section 6218(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 19541 provides that a petition must be filed with the Tax Court within 90 days after the statutory notice of deficiency is mailed to a taxpayer in the United States.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Thelma Rosenberg v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1971
- Luhring v. GlotzbachCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1962
- Flynn v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1963
- Houghton v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
- Axe v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1972
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by95 opinions
- Vincent C. Wiley v. United States of America Citizens Federal Mortgage Corporation State of Ohio Franklin County Treasurer and Houng ThaiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
- Cupp v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- United States v. Edward M. ZollaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Pyo v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
- Sokol v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1989
90 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.