## Facts

- The IRS mailed a notice of deficiency on June 20, 1974 to “Atlas Tool Co., Inc., Successor to Fletcher Plastics, Inc.” for income tax deficiencies for Fletcher Plastics’ fiscal years ending November 30, 1968, 1969, and 1970.
- Fletcher Plastics, Inc. was a New Jersey corporation that had been dissolved more than three years before the notice was issued; Stephan Schaffan was its sole shareholder.
- On September 13, 1974 (within the I.R.C. § 6213(a) 90-day period), a Tax Court petition was filed captioned “Fletcher Plastics, Inc., Stephan Schaffan, Transferee, Petitioner.”
- The timely petition was signed by counsel for Atlas Tool Co., Inc. and was intended to contest the deficiencies asserted in the notice addressed to Atlas as successor.
- The Commissioner moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the petition was not filed by the taxpayer named in the notice.
- After the 90-day period expired, counsel filed motions to amend the caption and petition and filed an amended petition captioned “Atlas Tool Co., Inc., Successor to Fletcher Plastics, Inc.”

## Issues

1. Whether a timely Tax Court petition filed on behalf of the taxpayer named in the notice of deficiency, but incorrectly captioned in other names, satisfies I.R.C. § 6213(a)’s requirement that “the taxpayer” file within 90 days.
2. Whether the taxpayer named in the notice may, after the 90-day period, ratify and amend the timely but miscaptioned petition to correct the party designation without creating an untimely new petition.

## Decision

- The Tax Court denied the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court granted the motions to amend the caption and the petition, recognizing Atlas Tool Co., Inc. as the proper petitioner.
- The court found the record showed the original timely petition was intended to be Atlas’s petition, and Atlas’s later amended petition constituted ratification and correction of a pleading defect rather than a new filing.

## Legal Principles

- Tax Court jurisdiction under I.R.C. § 6213(a) depends on a timely petition by the taxpayer named in the notice of deficiency, but misnomer or misdescription in the caption is not necessarily jurisdictional if the filing is substantively the taxpayer’s petition.
- A timely petition signed and filed on behalf of the taxpayer to whom the notice is addressed may be treated as that taxpayer’s petition despite caption errors when the intent and identity of the real party in interest are clear.
- Under Tax Court Rules (including Rules 41 and 60), amendments may correct party designation or caption defects after the 90-day period when the amendment ratifies and clarifies the original timely filing rather than asserting a new, untimely petition.
- Where the notice of deficiency and the petition make the controversy and the taxpayer’s identity apparent, correction of a miscaption that does not expand the controversy does not defeat jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The Tax Court held that a timely petition intended to contest a notice of deficiency invokes jurisdiction even if miscaptioned, and the taxpayer named in the notice may ratify and amend after the statutory period to correct the caption and pleadings when the amendment cures a pleading defect rather than initiating a new case.


Fletcher Plastics, Inc. v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 35 (1975)