Kimberley A. Parlin - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
                                     Discussion                                       
               The jurisdiction of this Court depends on the timely filing            
          of a petition.  Rule 13(c).  Section 6015(e)(1)(A) requires that            
          a petition to determine relief from joint and several liability             
          must be filed no later than the close of the 90th day after “the            
          date the Secretary mails, by certified or registered mail to the            
          taxpayer’s last known address, notice of the Secretary’s final              
          determination of relief available to the individual”.                       
               It is undisputed that the Final Notice denying petitioner’s            
          administrative request for relief from joint and several                    
          liability was sent to petitioner’s last known address by                    
          certified mail on November 29, 2004.  Thus, pursuant to section             
          6015(e)(1)(A)(ii), the petition was required to be filed by the             
          close of February 27, 2005.  The petition was postmarked March 7,           
          2005, and was not filed until March 14, 2005.  Accordingly, the             
          petition was untimely, and this case must be dismissed for lack             
          of timely filing of a petition.                                             
               In opposing respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioner                 
          alleges various procedural defects in respondent’s issuance of              
          the Final Notice.  Any such procedural defects, however, would              
          not operate to give this Court jurisdiction where the petition              
          was not filed in the 90-day period prescribed by section                    
          6015(e)(1)(A); at most, such procedural defects might implicate             
          an issue as to whether this case should be dismissed for                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011