James and Beverly Donehy - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         

          Atlantic, placed into the U.S. postal system, and ultimately                
          delivered to the Court in Washington, D.C.                                  
               As indicated, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss For Lack            
          Of Jurisdiction.  In her motion, respondent contends that                   
          dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is required because                      
          petitioners failed to file their petition within the 90-day time            
          period prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502.                             
          Petitioners filed an Objection to respondent's motion in                    
          which they oppose the dismissal of this case on the following               
               The petition was prepared and filed by our Accounting                  
               firm, Ernst & Young LLP.  The petition was filed on                    
               April 15, 1996 and was mailed from New York, New York.                 
               Therefore it would not have had a foreign postmark.                    
               Respondent's motion was called for hearing at the Motions              
          Session of the Court in Washington, D.C.  Counsel for respondent            
          appeared and presented argument in support of the motion.  No               
          appearance was made by or on behalf of petitioners.  However, the           
          Court did receive a Rule 50(c) statement from Ms. Berliner, which           
          was filed on behalf of petitioners.                                         
               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).                                                                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011