Manjit S. and Ravinder K. Aulakh - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         

          notice of deficiency to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's "last                
          known address."  Sec. 6212(b); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C.            
          42, 52 (1983).  If a notice of deficiency is mailed by certified            
          or registered mail to a taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known               
          address, it is valid even if the taxpayer does not actually                 
          receive it.  King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 679 (9th Cir.              
          1988), affg. 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.            
          806, 810 (1987); Frieling v. Commissioner, supra at 52.  In turn,           
          the taxpayer generally has 90 days from the date that the notice            
          of deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court for a              
          redetermination of the deficiency.  Sec. 6213(a).                           
               Respondent mailed the duplicate notices of deficiency                  
          involved herein on June 16, 1994.  The petition was postmarked              
          April 21, 1995, and was filed by the Court on May 1, 1995.  Given           
          the fact that the petition was neither mailed nor filed before              
          the expiration of the 90-day statutory period for filing a timely           
          petition, it follows that we lack jurisdiction over the petition.           
          Secs. 6213(a), 7502; Rule 13(a), (c); see Normac, Inc. v.                   
          Commissioner, supra.                                                        
          The question presented is whether the dismissal of the                      
          present case should be premised on petitioners' failure to file a           
          timely petition under section 6213(a) or on respondent's failure            
          to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212.  In               
          this regard, petitioners contend that respondent failed to mail             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011