Barry and Debra Bulakites - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         

          days remaining in the filing period is prejudicial to the taxpayer).        
          Consistent with Mulvania v. Commissioner, supra, we hold                    
          that petitioners received the notice of deficiency with                     
          sufficient time to file a timely petition for redetermination,              
          that petitioners suffered no prejudice, and that the notice of              
          deficiency in question is valid.  Because petitioners failed to             
          file their petition in a timely manner, we will grant                       
          respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction.6                   
          To reflect the foregoing,                                                   


          An order will be entered                                                    
          granting respondent's Motion To                                             
          Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction.                                           













          6  Although petitioners cannot pursue their case in this                    
          Court, they are not without a remedy.  In short, petitioners may            
          pay the tax, file a claim for a refund with the Internal Revenue            
          Service, and if the claim is denied, sue for a refund in the                
          Federal District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  See            
          McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970).                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  

Last modified: May 25, 2011