Court Opinion

ID: 9447722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:42:04.43143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:09.360060
License: Public Domain

BOLDT, District Judge
(dissenting).
Statutory deficiency notice for the tax year 1952 was posted by registered mail to petitioner’s correct address on June 26, 1958. The postal service failed to deliver the notice letter, which some time later jvas returned to the Commissioner. On July 24, 1958 a copy of the deficiency notice bearing date of June 26, 1958 was delivered to petitioner in person.
Under the statutes and decisions cited in the majority opinion, registered mailing to a proper address of the 90-day letter is valid constructive notice to the taxpayer, whether or not the letter is actually received by the taxpayer. The period within which the taxpayer may petition for review in the tax court commences with such mailing date.
It may be that a constructive deficiency notice effective as of its mailing date is voided or superseded by a later new notice, whether constructively or personally served. It seems to me that a new notice does not result merely from delivery of a copy of the mailed notice. Nothing more than that occurred in the present case. Personal delivery to the taxpayer of a copy of the mailed notice bearing date of the mailing thereof although not specified as such, did not purport to be, and on its face was not, a new notice. It merely conveyed to the taxpayer actual knowledge of the mailed notice. There was nothing in the per*959sonally served copy of notice to mislead or deceive petitioner and upon its delivery he was better informed of the mailing than if he had not received it at all. If tax court review was being considered, the delivered copy of notice, which bore its correct mailing date, at least required petitioner to make immediate inquiry as to when and how he should proceed. There does not appear to be any reason in law or fact for vitiating, or postponing effective date of, the deficiency notice which was both mailed and served upon the taxpayer. If so, the dismissal order of the tax court ought to be affirmed.