- 8 -
mailed the notice of deficiency for 1990 to petitioner's last
known address and that such notice is valid under section 6212.
We are also satisfied that the notice of deficiency for
1991, 1992, and 1993 was mailed to petitioner's last known
address. The record indicates that in January 1995, petitioner
advised Revenue Officer Pittman that he was residing at the
Lithia Springs address and that his mailing address was the
Austell address. In addition, on August 17, 1995, petitioner
filed his 1994 tax return listing the Lithia Springs address as
his current address. We are unable to find that petitioner
provided respondent with clear and concise notice that he had
moved back to the Fayetteville address prior to the mailing of
the notice of deficiency on September 15, 1995. Under the
circumstances, we conclude that the notice of deficiency for
1991, 1992, and 1993 was mailed to petitioner at his last known
address. Consequently, we shall grant respondent's motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.4
To reflect the foregoing,
An order will be entered
granting respondent's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
4 Although petitioner cannot pursue his case in this Court,
he is not without a remedy. Petitioner may pay the tax, file a
claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service, and if the
claim is denied, sue for a refund in the 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
Last modified: May 25, 2011