- 8 -
Court on February 20, 1996. The 90-day period prescribed in
section 6213(a) for filing a timely petition in this case expired
on Tuesday, February 13, 1996, which date was not a holiday in
the District of Columbia. 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. Keeton v.
Commissioner, 74 T.C. 377, 379 (1980).
Petitioner contends that the notice is invalid because it
was not mailed to her last known address. 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. In this regard, petitioner
contends that Terry McMahon's conversation with Revenue Agent
Bodner on June 29, 1995, provided respondent with clear and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011