Sarah R. Elgart and Stephen K. Glassman - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

          T.C. 1063 (1987); Clodfelter v. Commissioner, 527 F.2d 754 (9th             
          Cir. 1975), affg. 57 T.C. 102 (1971); Needham v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 1993-440.                                                        
               In the present case it is irrelevant whether Ms.                       
          Steinhauer's address or the Palms address was petitioners' last             
          known address.  On December 14, 1995, respondent mailed a notice            
          of deficiency to petitioners at the Palms address.  A copy of the           
          deficiency notice and a letter from the IRS, both dated December            
          14, 1995, were also mailed to Ms. Steinhauer's address pursuant             
          to the power of attorney.  Petitioners received the deficiency              
          notice on December 15, 1995, and Ms. Steinhauer received the                
          deficiency notice on December 18, 1995.                                     
               Regardless of which address was the last known address, an             
          individual at each address received the notice in time for                  
          petitioners to timely file a petition.  See Mulvania v.                     
          Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65 (1983), affd. 769 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.              
          1985).  The last day to timely file a petition with this Court              
          was on March 13, 1996; however, the petition was not mailed until           
          March 14, 1996.  Petitioners failed to file the petition within             
          the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a).  Accordingly,              
          petitioners did not timely file their petition, and we lack                 
          jurisdiction.                                                               
               We disagree with petitioners' argument that respondent must            
          send the original notice of deficiency to petitioners' last known           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011