- 6 -
later on February 20, 1996. Although it is evident that the
petition was not filed within the 90-day period prescribed in
section 6213(a), respondent concedes that the notice is invalid
because it was not issued to petitioner's last known address. We
accept respondent's concession, and we shall grant respondent's
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to 1992 on this
ground.3
Respondent further contends that we lack jurisdiction in
this proceeding to consider the validity of the joint notice of
deficiency issued to petitioner and Charles N. Scott for the 1993
taxable year. In particular, respondent asserts that the Court
lacks jurisdiction over the 1993 taxable year because that year
was not placed in dispute in the petition. Petitioner contends
that the notice of deficiency for 1993 is invalid on the ground
that the notice of deficiency has "no basis in material fact".
Before expressing any opinion with respect to petitioner's
argument concerning the validity of the notice of deficiency for
1993, we must consider respondent's argument that the 1993
taxable year was not placed in dispute in this proceeding. The
note to Rule 41(a) states that the Court's jurisdiction over
parties and years in issue "is fixed by the petition as
originally filed or as amended within the statutory period for
3 Because we shall grant respondent's motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the notice for 1992 was
not issued to petitioner's last known address, we do not consider
petitioner's contention that the notice for 1992 is invalid on
the ground that it lacks a basis in material fact.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011