- 10 -
sec. 362(a)(8), (c)(2) (Supp. II, 1978). The 90-day period
expired on November 25, 1984. Sec. 6213(a). Petitioner did not
file her petition in this case until April 28, 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 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.
Petitioner argues that respondent's motion should be denied
on the ground that the notice was not sent to her last known
address. Neither section 6212 nor the regulations thereunder
define a taxpayer's "last known address". A taxpayer's last
known address is the address to which, in light of all
surrounding facts and circumstances, the Commissioner reasonably
believed the taxpayer wished the notice of deficiency to be sent.
The practical refinement of this rule is that, generally, a
taxpayer's last known address is that used on his most recent
return, unless the taxpayer communicates to the Commissioner
"clear and concise" notice of a change of address. Williams v.
Commissioner, supra at 1067 (quoting United States v. Zolla, 724
F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984)). When a taxpayer changes his
address, the taxpayer must notify the Commissioner of the change
or else accept the consequences. Alta Sierra Vista, Inc. v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011