- 17 -
Commissioner, 272 F.2d 383 (2d Cir. 1959), affg. a Memorandum
Opinion of the this Court; James v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1990-128, as we have held was done in the instant case. As the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently observed:
After a proper mailing of the notice by the IRS, its
remailing of the notice to a new address after receipt
of information that the address it used had become
inoperative does not afford the taxpayer a revived or
extended opportunity to seek a redetermination in tax
court. * * * [Follum v. Commissioner, supra at 120.]
Thus, we hold that respondent did not abandon the original notice
of deficiency dated April 3 and mailed April 2, 1996. Since the
notice of deficiency was sent to petitioners at their last known
address within the meaning of section 6212(b)(1) and the petition
in this case was not filed until August 27, 1996, well over 90
days after either April 2 or 3, 1996, the petition was not timely
filed under section 6213(a). Thus, we lack jurisdiction in this
case.
For the reasons set out above, petitioners’ motion to
dismiss will be denied and respondent’s motion to dismiss will be
granted. To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order of
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
will be entered.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Last modified: May 25, 2011