- NEXTRECORD -
telling Ms. Russell that Ms. Russell could make whatever
disposition she wished of petitioner's certified mail.
Accordingly, we find that petitioner received actual notice of
the notices of deficiency. Any errors attributable to respondent
with respect to the address appearing in such notices were
rendered harmless because of petitioner's refusal to claim her
certified mail. See Erhard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-344,
affd. 87 F.3d 273 (9th Cir. 1996) (taxpayer could not defeat
actual notice by refusing delivery of deficiency notices).
Conclusion
Because notices of deficiency for the taxable years 1989
through 1993 were mailed to petitioner at her last known address,
and because petitioner filed her petition in respect of such
notices in an untimely fashion, we shall grant respondent's
motion to dismiss.5
In order to reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order of
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
will be entered.
5 Our action in granting respondent's motion to dismiss will
render moot certain motions filed by petitioner. Also, as
previously mentioned, petitioner is not without a remedy even
though she cannot pursue her case in this Court. In short,
petitioner may pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the IRS,
and if the claim is denied, sue for a refund in the appropriate
Federal District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See
McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: May 25, 2011