- 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
ground:
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.
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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011