- 4 -
respondent informed petitioner that his Request was untimely and
that he would have to petition the Tax Court to dispute his tax
liability. On April 12, 2004, we filed petitioner’s Request,
which was forwarded to the Court by respondent, as an imperfect
petition. We subsequently ordered petitioner to file an amended
petition with the required filing fee by June 1, 2004. On May
28, 2004, we received and filed petitioner’s amended petition.
On January 24, 2005, we received and filed respondent’s
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which alleged that
petitioner’s petition was not filed within the 90-day period
prescribed in sections 6213(a) and 7502. In support of the
motion, respondent attached a postmarked copy of the certified
mailing list bearing petitioner’s name and address, the date on
which the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner, and the
article tracking number of the notice.
On February 18, 2005, we filed petitioner’s response in
opposition to respondent’s motion. Petitioner contends that he
did not receive the notice of deficiency dated January 6, 2004.
Petitioner also argues that he timely mailed his Request to the
Internal Revenue Service.
Discussion
Our jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the
issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and on a timely filed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011