- 10 -
Accordingly, the 90-day period began to run 60 days later, or on
November 14, 1994, and a petition was required to be filed by
February 13, 1995.2 Secs. 6212 and 6213(f)(1); 11 U.S.C. sec.
362(a)(8), (c)(2) (1988). Petitioners did not file their joint
petition until June 30, 1995. Therefore, given a valid notice of
deficiency, the petition must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction as untimely. Secs. 6213(a), 7502; Rule 13(a), (c);
see Pietanza v. Commissioner, supra at 735-736. However, if we
should find that jurisdiction is also lacking because respondent
did not mail a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212, we
would dismiss the case on that ground. Pietanza v. Commissioner,
supra at 736.
Petitioners argue that respondent's motion should be denied
on the ground that the notice was not sent to their last known
address. They claim that the notice was not properly addressed
to their residence due to the omission of the "Box 1370"
designation from the address to which the notice was directed.3
Neither section 6212 nor the regulations thereunder define a
taxpayer's "last known address". Generally, a taxpayer's last
known address is the address to which, in light of all
2 The 90-day period expired on Feb. 12, 1995. That date was a
Sunday. Consequently, the last day for filing a petition was
Feb. 13, 1995. Sec. 6213(a).
3 Petitioners' officially preferred mailing address in 1992
was the 871 address. As noted, however, the Gardiner Post Office
notified its customers that during 1992 all mailpieces would be
delivered without interruption.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011