- 9 -
lack of jurisdiction petitioner's request for a redetermination of
the 1992 and 1993 income tax deficiencies as well as the 1992-95
section 4975 excise tax deficiencies.
Discussion
The jurisdiction of this Court to redetermine a deficiency
depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a
timely filed petition. Rule 13(a) and (c); Levitt v. Commissioner,
97 T.C. 437, 441 (1991); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27
(1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In
essence, petitioner contends that the second and third deficiency
notices were not valid because they were issued beyond the
limitations period, and respondent contends that we do not have
jurisdiction to consider the second and third deficiency notices
because there was no indication that respondent's determinations set
forth therein were being contested in a timely filed petition (i.e.,
the January 2, 1997, petition).
We shall first consider respondent's motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction. The Rules of this Court provide that
Ordinarily, a separate petition shall be filed
with respect to each notice of deficiency or
each notice of liability. However, a single
petition may be filed seeking a redetermination
with respect to all notices of deficiency or
liability directed to one person alone or to
such person and one or more other persons or to
a husband and a wife individually, except that
the Court may require a severance and a
separate case to be maintained with respect to
one or more of such notices. Where the notice
of deficiency or liability is directed to more
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011