-4-
Saturday, March 30, 1996, the date that petitioner actually
received the notice of deficiency.
This case was called for hearing in Washington, D.C., at the
Court's motions session. Counsel for both parties appeared at
the hearing and presented argument on the pending motion.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may
exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by
Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The
Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends upon the
issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed
petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27
(1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988).
Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes the Commissioner, after
determining a deficiency, to send a notice of deficiency to the
taxpayer by certified or registered mail. It is sufficient for
jurisdictional purposes if the Commissioner mails the notice of
deficiency to the taxpayer's "last known address." Sec. 6212(b);
Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983). If a notice of
deficiency is mailed to the taxpayer's last known address, actual
receipt of the notice is immaterial. King v. Commissioner, 857
F.2d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Yusko
v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 810 (1987); Frieling v.
Commissioner, supra at 52. The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days
from the date the notice of deficiency is mailed (150 days if the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011