- NEXTRECORD -
the ground that the petition was not timely filed within the time
prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502. Petitioner
objects to respondent's motion on the ground that respondent did
not issue a valid notice of deficiency for any of the years
before the Court.2 The issues that we must decide are: (1)
Whether respondent actually mailed notices of deficiency for the
taxable years 1989 through 1993 to petitioner on January 24,
1995, and, if so, (2) whether such notices were mailed to
petitioner at her last known address.
Petitioner Margaret Loughran Webb (petitioner) resided in
Ivanhoe, Texas, at the time that her petition was filed with the
Court.
Background
On January 24, 1995, the date on which respondent
purportedly mailed notices of deficiency to petitioner for the
taxable years 1989 through 1993, petitioner's mailing address was
Route 1, Box 176-A2, Ivanhoe, Texas 75447.
Corine Brown (Ms. Brown) is the supervisor of the 90-day
unit of the Examination Division of the Internal Revenue Service
in Dallas, Texas (the 90-day unit). Ms. Brown held this position
on January 24, 1995.
2 Although petitioner has not cross-moved for dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction, an invalid notice of deficiency would
result in a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction but with a
different legal result from that of an untimely petition.
Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), affd.
without published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991). We
discuss this matter further, infra pp. 8-9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011