Rochelle v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

163 Citing cases

  1. Graev v. Comm'r

    147 T.C. No. 16 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 30, 2016)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the IRS’s position

    In similar contexts this Court has held that procedural errors or omissions are not a basis to invalidate an administrative act or proceeding unless there was prejudice to the complaining party. See John C. Hom & Assocs., Inc. v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. 210, 214 (2013) (failure to include the address and telephone number for the National Taxpayer Advocate, as required by section 6212(a), on a notice of deficiency); Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 167 (2002) (failure during a collection due process hearing to provide a taxpayer with a copy of the record of assessment); see also Boyd v. United States, 121 F. App'x 348, 350 (10th Cir. 2005) (failure to allow taxpayer to record collection due process hearing); Rochelle v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 356, 363 (2001) (failure to provide due date for filing petition in notice of deficiency), aff'd, 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002). Additionally, the Supreme Court has held "that if a statute does not specify a consequence for noncompliance with * * * [a statutory provision], the federal courts will not in the ordinary course impose their own coercive sanction."

  2. Elings v. C.I.R

    324 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 24 times

    I.R.C. § 6213(a).Rochelle v. Comm'r, 116 T.C. 356, 360, 2001 WL 548942 (2001) ("`The Committee believes that taxpayers should receive assistance in determining the time period within which they must file a petition in the Tax Court and that taxpayers should be able to rely on the computation of that period by the IRS.'") (quoting S. Rep. 105-174, at 90 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 537, 626), aff'd, 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir:2002) (per curiam)). Pub.L. No. 105-206, § 3463(a), 112 Stat. 685, 767 (1998).

  3. Labranche v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 534-24 (U.S.T.C. Jan. 7, 2025)

    In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. See I.R.C. § 6213; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases). See also Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), aff'g 116 T.C. 356 (2001); Sanders v. Commissioner, 161 T.C. 112, 119-120 (2023) (holding that the Court will continue treating the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable to jurisdictions outside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit). Section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after a valid notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day).

  4. Reed v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 5172-24 (U.S.T.C. Oct. 23, 2024)

    This Court's jurisdiction to determine a deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740, 741 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), aff'g 116 T.C. 356 (2001); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In this regard, I.R.C. section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day).

  5. Reynolds v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 11307-24 (U.S.T.C. Sep. 13, 2024)

    This Court's jurisdiction to determine a deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740, 741 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), aff'g 116 T.C. 356 (2001); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In this regard, I.R.C. section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day).

  6. Norris v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 1910-22 (U.S.T.C. Jun. 25, 2024)

    In a deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740, 741 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), aff'g 116 T.C. 356 (2001); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner

  7. Edwards v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 18552-23 (U.S.T.C. Feb. 27, 2024)

    This Court's jurisdiction to determine a deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a) and (c); Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740, 741 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), aff 'g 116 T.C. 356 (2001); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In this regard, I.R.C. section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day).

  8. Collective v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 21284-21 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 29, 2022)   Cited 1,163 times

    And the Fifth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits continued to so hold. See Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740, 741 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), aff'g 116 T.C. 356 (2001); Edwards v. Commissioner, 791 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Elings v. Commissioner, 324 F.3d at 1112; see also Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2020) (applying the clear statement rule to section 6213(a) and concluding that its deadline is jurisdictional).

  9. Gregory v. Comm'r

    T.C. Memo. 2018-192 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 20, 2018)

    Held, further, the omission from a notice of deficiency of the last day to file a timely petition for redetermination does not invalidate the notice. Rochelle v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 356 (2001), aff'd, 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002), followed. Held, further, a technical services territory manager has authority to sign and issue a notice of deficiency.

  10. Lepard v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 19232-24 (U.S.T.C. Feb. 20, 2025)

    See I.R.C. sections 6213(a) and 7502; Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740, 741 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), aff'g 116 T.C. 356 (2001); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases).