Hurst, Anthony & Watkins v. CommissionerHurst, Anthony & Watkins v. Commissioner
Lead Opinion
The Commissioner moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that the Board was without jurisdiction оn account of the petition not having been filed within 60 days after the mailing of the deficiency notice by the Commissionеr to the taxpayer. The еssential facts for considеration are as follows:
The Commissioner of Internal Revеnue mailed the notice of deficiency to the above-named taxpayer on July 7, 1924. The notice was inclosed in an official enveloрe addressed to the taxpayer at 316 Fourth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. Thе notice bore no date upon its face. Howevеr, it was received by the taxpayer in Pittsburgh on July 8. The taxpayer, in his petition on appeal, erroneously stated that the letter was mailed on July 6. As a defense to the motion to dismiss, the taxpayer contеnds that the Commissioner is estopped from asserting that the petition was not filed within 60 days beсause the deficiency nоtice bore no date.
It is оur opinion that this defense is without merit. Section 274(a) of.-the Revenue Act of 1924 provides that “within sixty (60) days after such notice is mailed the taxpayer may filе an appeal.” From this lаnguage it is obvious that it does not matter what date is stamped or printed on the face of the notice. The datе from which the time begins to run is the dаte of mailing. Therefore, as the facts show that the notice was mailed on the 7th day оf July and that the appeal was not filed until the 6th day of September, the appeal was not filed until the sixty-first day after the notice was mailed. This, therefore, obliges us to dismiss the appeal, upon the authority of the Appeal of Sam Satovsky. 1 B. T. A., 22, Appeal of Hatch & Bailey Co., 1 B. T. A., 25, and Appeal of William Frantze & Co., Inc., 1 B. T. A., 26.