- 5 -
of jurisdiction as to the taxable year 1990 alleging that the
deficiency notice was not mailed to his correct address.
Petitioner subsequently filed a supplement to his motion.
A hearing was conducted in this case in Washington, D.C.
Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing and presented
argument in support of respondent's motion to dismiss. During
the course of the hearing, counsel for respondent stated that
respondent could not demonstrate what, if any, steps were taken
to determine petitioner's correct address prior to the mailing of
the disputed notice of deficiency in August 1993. Although
petitioner did not appear at the hearing, he did file a written
statement with the Court pursuant to Rule 50(c) in support of his
motion to dismiss.
Discussion
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 the Commissioner
mails the notice of deficiency to the taxpayer's "last known
address". Sec. 6212(b); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011