- 6 -
When petitioners’ 1994 Federal income tax return was
prepared and timely filed, the address shown on that return was
the Scenic Ridge address. At the time of the mailing of the 1994
notice of deficiency, respondent’s computer records reflected the
Scenic Ridge address.
As indicated, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss 1994 for
Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not
filed within the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a).
Petitioners filed an objection to respondent's motion to dismiss,
alleging that respondent failed to mail the original deficiency
notice by registered or certified mail to their last known
address.
Discussion
This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency
depends upon the timely issuance of a valid notice of deficiency
and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v.
Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). It is clear that the
petition and amended petition were filed more than 90 days after
the mailing of the 1994 notice of deficiency. Consequently, we
must dismiss that year for lack of jurisdiction. However, we
first determine whether respondent issued a valid notice of
deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011