Manjit S. and Ravinder K. Aulakh - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         

          As indicated, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss For Lack                 
          of Jurisdiction in which she asserts that petitioners failed to             
          file their petition within the 90-day period prescribed by                  
          section 6213(a).  Petitioners filed an objection to respondent's            
          motion in which they assert that the notice of deficiency was not           
          mailed to them at their last known address.  In this objection,             
          petitioners identify their last known address as 2420 San Bruno             
          Ave., San Francisco, California.  Respondent filed a response to            
          petitioners' objection in which she asserts that the notice of              
          deficiency was mailed to petitioners at their last known address.           
          Hearings were conducted in this case in Washington, D.C.                    
          Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearings and presented               
          argument in support of the pending motion.  Although petitioners            
          did not appear at the hearings, they did file a written statement           
          with the Court pursuant to Rule 50(c).                                      
               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); Monge v. Commissioner,             
          93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142,           
          147 (1988).  Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes the                       
          Commissioner after determining a deficiency to send a notice of             
          deficiency to the taxpayer by certified or registered mail.  It             
          is sufficient for jurisdictional purposes if respondent mails the           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011