- 4 -
for respondent appeared at the hearing and submitted to the Court
a statement by Michelle Marks, the acting Postmaster of the
Wrightwood, California Post Office. Ms. Marks' statement
indicates that the records concerning the attempted delivery of
the notice of deficiency in question were destroyed in the normal
course of business in July 1997, 2 years after the attempted
delivery. Ms. Marks' statement further indicates that the
incorrect ZIP code used in the address on the notice of
deficiency would not have affected the proper delivery of the
item to petitioner at the Wrightwood Post Office.
Although petitioner did not appear at either of the hearings
described above, he did file a supplemental response with the
Court on March 25, 1998, repeating without elaboration his prior
assertion that the notice of deficiency was not mailed to his
correct address and that he did not receive the notice.
Discussion
The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends
upon the 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). Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes the Commissioner,
after determining a deficiency, to send a notice of deficiency to
the taxpayer by certified or registered mail. It is sufficient
for jurisdictional purposes if the Commissioner mails the notice
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011