- 4 -
days from the date a statutory notice of deficiency is mailed to
a taxpayer residing in the United States. Sec. 6213(a). If a
petition is not filed within the 90-day period, this Court does
not acquire jurisdiction of the case. Cataldo v. Commissioner,
60 T.C. 522 (1973), affd. per curiam 499 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1974).
The petition in this case was filed on May 24, 1995. As
indicated above, if there is a valid notice of deficiency and the
petition is filed after expiration of the statutory filing
period, the petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
as untimely. Sec. 6213(a); Rule 13(a), (c); see Monge v.
Commissioner, supra at 27; Abeles v. Commissioner, supra at 1026,
1027. However, if the notice of deficiency is invalid or if no
deficiency notice was issued, we will dismiss the case with
respect to either or both years for lack of jurisdiction on that
ground. See Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736
(1989), supplemented by T.C. Memo. 1990-524, affd. without
published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991).
Petitioners acknowledge that the 1985 notice of deficiency
was properly mailed on April 17, 1989, and that they received it
without prejudicial delay. Petitioners do not contend that the
1985 notice was insufficient in any respect when it was issued.
Instead, petitioners argue that respondent should be estopped
from claiming the petition is time-barred on equitable grounds.
With respect to the 1986 notice, petitioners dispute that
respondent prepared such notice in 1990 and, in any event,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011