- 9 -
Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra at 788; Palmer v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1992-352, affd. without published opinion 4 F.3d 1000
(11th Cir. 1993). Indeed, we have expressly held that we lack
jurisdiction to consider computational adjustments in a
subsequent deficiency proceeding to redetermine additions to tax.
In his petition and his objection to respondent's Motion to
Dismiss, petitioner contends that the FPAA mailed to him pursuant
to section 6223(a)(2) and (d)(2) should be considered ineffective
notice of the partnership proceeding because his poor health
precluded him from comprehending such notice. In this regard,
petitioner alleged that he was depressed, that he was developing
ulcerative colitis, and that he almost died. However, petitioner
never presented any evidence regarding the state of his health at
the time that the FPAA was mailed to him in April 1988.
Petitioner has therefore failed to establish the factual
predicate necessary to any consideration of his legal argument.2
Further, in his petition, petitioner alleged that respondent
erred in assessing the tax attributable to petitioner's
partnership items. Petitioner subsequently clarified his
position and recognized that this Court does not have
2 In the context of the deficiency procedures prescribed in
subch. B of ch. 63, the analog of an FPAA is a notice of
deficiency. We note that, as a general rule, a notice of
deficiency is legally sufficient if it is mailed to a taxpayer at
the taxpayer's last known address, even if the taxpayer is under
a legal disability or incompetent. Sec. 6212(b)(1); Mulvania v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67-68 (1983).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011