- 11 -
petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, we shall
deny petitioner's Motion to Strike.
A second hearing was conducted in this case, again in
Washington, D.C., on September 13, 1995. Counsel for both
parties appeared at the hearing and presented argument in respect
of petitioner's motion to dismiss. During the course of the
hearing, petitioner's counsel raised an issue whether
respondent's failure to comply with section 7517 provides an
alternative ground for holding the notice of deficiency invalid.7
Discussion
The issue to be decided is whether the notice of deficiency
issued in this case is invalid on the ground that respondent
failed to make a determination within the meaning of section
6212(a). As explained in greater detail below, we agree with
respondent that the notice of deficiency is valid.
This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency
depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a
timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Levitt v. Commissioner,
97 T.C. 437, 441 (1991); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27
(1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988).
7 At present, there are no fewer than eight motions pending
in this case. Regrettably, and despite a legal file now
comprised of four thick volumes, little or nothing has been done
in the way of preparing this case for trial. At this particular
juncture in the proceedings, this case serves as an excellent
illustration of petty bickering and unnecessary quarrelsomeness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011