- NEXTRECORD -
deficiency under section 6212. See Shelton v. Commissioner, 63
T.C. 193 (1974); O'Brien v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 543, 548
(1974); Heaberlin v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 58, 59 (1960). If we
conclude that the petition is untimely, petitioner would be
precluded from challenging the merits of the deficiency in this
Court and would only be able to obtain judicial review of such
merits by paying the tax, filing a claim for refund with the IRS,
and if the claim is denied, suing for a refund in the appropriate
Federal District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Sec.
7422. However, if jurisdiction is lacking because of
respondent's failure to issue valid notices of deficiency, we
will dismiss the case on that ground, rather than for lack of a
timely filed petition. Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729,
735-736 (1989), affd. without published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d
Cir. 1991); Weinroth v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 430, 435 (1980);
Keeton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 377, 379 (1980).
As indicated, the parties initially disagree whether notices
of deficiency were, in fact, issued to petitioner and, if so,
whether they were mailed to petitioner at petitioner's last known
address. Respondent contends that a notice of deficiency for the
taxable years 1989 through 1991, and a second notice of
deficiency for the taxable years 1992 and 1993, were issued to
petitioner on January 24, 1995. Respondent also contends that
both notices of deficiency were mailed to petitioner at
petitioner's last known address.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011