- 3 -
computing whether a petition was filed within 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. Pugsley v.
Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691, 692 (11th Cir. 1985).
Section 6212(a) authorizes the Commissioner to send a notice
of deficiency to the taxpayer by certified or registered mail.
Petitioner alleges that the notice of deficiency was not issued
by certified or registered mail and apparently argues that it is
invalid for that reason. We disagree. It has been held
repeatedly that an error in the delivery of the notice of
deficiency does not render the notice invalid so as to defeat Tax
Court jurisdiction when the petition is timely filed. Balkissoon
v. Commissioner, 995 F.2d 525 (4th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo.
1992-322; see also Clodfelter v. Commissioner, 527 F.2d 754, 756
(9th Cir. 1975), affg. 57 T.C. 102 (1971); Goodman v.
Commissioner, 71 T.C. 974 (1979); Zaun v. Commissioner, 62 T.C.
278 (1974). Providing the taxpayer with actual notice of the
deficiency determination in a timely manner is the essence of the
statutory scheme. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 68
(1983). Since petitioner received the notice of deficiency and
timely filed his petition with this Court, we need not decide
whether the notice of deficiency was sent by registered or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011