John and Betty Richardson Stafford - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         

          and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set             
          forth below.                                                                
                         OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE                           
               ARMEN, Special Trial Judge:  This matter is before the Court           
          on respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction.                 
          Although respondent contends that this case must be dismissed on            
          the ground that John and Betty Richardson Stafford (petitioners)            
          failed to file their petition within the time prescribed by                 
          section 6213(a), petitioners argue that dismissal should be based           
          on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency               
          under section 6212.  There being no dispute that we lack                    
          jurisdiction over the petition filed herein, we must resolve the            
          parties' dispute regarding the proper ground for dismissal.  See            
          Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), affd.                
          without published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991).                     
          Background                                                                  
               The taxable year in issue in this case is 1990.                        
               Petitioners filed a joint Federal income tax return for the            
          taxable year 1990.  On their return, petitioners listed their               
          address as 6106 Mount Creek Place, Norcross, Georgia 30092-2324             
          (the Georgia address).                                                      
          From June 1992 through August 1994, respondent and                          
          petitioners exchanged a substantial amount of correspondence                

          Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011