- 5 -
deficiency was not sent to their last known address and was a
nullity.2
Discussion
This 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 was mailed to
2 In this regard, we note that even though a notice of
deficiency is not mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address, if
the taxpayer timely files a petition with respect thereto, the
petition is timely and we have jurisdiction thereof.
Accordingly, the use of the Studio City address does not affect
the validity of the 1994 notice.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011