- 7 -
Respondent mailed the notices of deficiency in this case on
November 3, 1995. The petition in this case was postmarked April
24, 1996, and was filed by the Court on April 29, 1996. Given
that the petition was neither mailed nor filed prior to the
expiration of the 90-day statutory period for filing a timely
petition, it follows that we lack jurisdiction over the petition.
Secs. 6213(a), 7502; Rule 13(a), (c); see Normac, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra.
The question presented is whether dismissal of this case
should be premised on petitioner's failure to file a timely
petition under section 6213(a) or on respondent's failure to
issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. As
previously indicated, petitioner contends that respondent failed
to mail the notices of deficiency to his last known address. We
disagree.
Petitioner contends that his last known address was the
Rochester address--the address listed in his tax returns for the
years in issue. Although the phrase "last known address" is not
defined in the Internal Revenue Code or in the regulations, we
have held that a taxpayer's last known address is the address
shown on the taxpayer's most recently filed return, absent clear
and concise notice of a change of address. Abeles v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988); see King v.
Commissioner, supra at 681. The taxpayer bears the burden of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011