James and Beverly Donehy - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         

               We also note that it has not been alleged, much less proven,           
          that the notice of deficiency was "addressed to a person outside            
          of the United States".  Accordingly, we have no basis upon which            
          to conclude that the petition was timely filed within the                   
          alternate 150-day time period prescribed by section 6213(a).                
          Because petitioners did not file their petition with the                    
          Court within the time period prescribed by section 6213(a), we              
          lack jurisdiction to redetermine petitioners' tax liability for             
          the taxable year in issue.  Accordingly, we must grant                      
          respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.4                   
               In order to give effect to the foregoing,                              

                                   An order granting respondent's                     
                                   motion and dismissing this case for                
                                   lack of jurisdiction will be entered.              

          4  Although petitioners cannot pursue their case in this                    
          Court, they are not without a judicial remedy.  Specifically,               
          they may pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal             
          Revenue Service, and, if their claim is denied, sue for a refund            
          in the appropriate Federal District Court or the United States              
          Court of Federal Claims.  McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138,           
          142 (1970).                                                                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  

Last modified: May 25, 2011