- 5 -
is immaterial. King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 679 (9th Cir.
1988), affg. 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
806, 810 (1987); Frieling v. Commissioner, supra at 52. The
taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days from the date that the notice of
deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court for a
redetermination of the deficiency. Sec. 6213(a).
Respondent mailed the deficiency notice in this case on
January 5, 1994. Thus, the 90-day period for filing a timely
petition with this Court expired on Tuesday, April 5, 1994, a day
that was not a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. Sec.
6213(a). The envelope containing the petition in this case was
postmarked May 16, 1995, and the petition was filed by the Court
on May 22, 1995. 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.
Petitioner contends that respondent failed to mail the
notice of deficiency to her at her last known address. We
disagree.
Although the phrase "last known address" is not defined in
the Internal Revenue Code or in the regulations, we have held
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011