- 12 -
to advise petitioners that respondent had considered the
information that petitioners had furnished and had concluded that
such information did not warrant any revision to the
determination previously made.7 Indeed, such letter also advised
petitioners that "This correspondence and consideration of your
case has not extended the period in which you may file a petition
with the United States Tax Court" and that if petitioners wished
to pursue the matter, they could, "within the period stated in
the statutory notice, petition the United States Tax Court".
Such advice is only consistent with a finding that the IRS letter
dated November 21, 1996, did not constitute a (second) notice of
deficiency, and we so hold.
Conclusion
Because petitioners did not file their petition with the
Court within the time prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502, we
lack jurisdiction to redetermine petitioners' tax liability for
the year in issue. Accordingly, we must grant respondent's
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.8
7 Here we recall that the notice of deficiency disallowed
petitioners' Schedule C deductions because such deductions
constituted startup expenses that were required to be
capitalized; the IRS letter dated Nov. 21, 1996, reaffirmed that
determination.
8 Although petitioners cannot pursue their case in this
Court, they are not without a judicial remedy. Specifically,
they may pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal
Revenue Service, and, if their claim is denied, sue for a refund
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011