- 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