- 4 -
office of pretrial services of his Van Nuys address. Petitioner
was not incarcerated when the notice of deficiency was issued.
Petitioner contends that for purposes of section 6212(b)(1),
his last known address is the Van Nuys address. Respondent
argues that the Van Nuys address is not petitioner's last known
address and that a notice of deficiency was mailed to
petitioner's last known address. Alternatively, respondent
contends that petitioner actually received the notice of
deficiency without prejudicial delay and had ample time to file a
petition within 90 days from the date the notice of deficiency
was mailed.
Discussion
The jurisdiction of this Court to redetermine a tax
deficiency depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of
deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. Secs. 6212 and
6213; Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988); Pyo v.
Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). A petition is timely if
it is filed within 90 days after the notice of deficiency was
mailed to a person within the United States. Sec. 6213(a).
Under conditions set forth in section 7502, for purposes of
computing the 90-day filing period, timely mailing of the
petition by the taxpayer is timely filing. When a petition is
not filed within the 90-day period, the case must be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction if the notice of deficiency is valid.
Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691, 692 (11th Cir. 1985).
Petitioner did not mail the petition in this case within 90 days
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011