Gustavo and Maria Guerrero - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         

          The petition arrived at the Court in an envelope postmarked                 
          November 26, 1997, and was filed by the Court on December 1,                
          1997.  Given that the petition was neither mailed nor filed                 
          before the expiration of the 90-day statutory period for filing             
          a timely petition, it follows that we lack jurisdiction over the            
          petition.  Secs. 6213(a) and 7502; Rule 13(a), (c); see Normac,             
          Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.                                                
               The question presented is whether dismissal of this case               
          should be premised on petitioners' failure to file a                        
          timely petition under section 6213(a) or on respondent's failure            
          to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212.                   
          Petitioners contend that they did not receive the notice of                 
          deficiency and that the notice is invalid because it was not                
          mailed to their last known address.                                         
               Although the phrase "last known address" is not defined in             
          the Internal Revenue Code or in the regulations thereunder, we              
          have held that a taxpayer's last known address is the address               
          shown on the taxpayer's most recently filed return, absent clear            
          and concise notice of a change of address.  Abeles v.                       
          Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988); see King v.                        
          Commissioner, supra at 681.  Although a taxpayer is obliged to              
          provide respondent with clear and concise notice of a change of             
          address, respondent must exercise reasonable care and due                   
          diligence in ascertaining the taxpayer's correct address.  King             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011