- 9 -
In the present case, respondent mailed the notice of
deficiency to petitioner in triplicate on August 24, 1994. The
petition arrived at the Court in an envelope postmarked October
31, 1997, and was filed by the Court on November 3, 1997. Given
that the petition was neither mailed nor filed before the
expiration of the 90-day statutory period for filing a timely
petition, it follows that we lack jurisdiction over the petition.
Secs. 6213(a), 7502; Rule 13(a), (c); see Normac, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra.
The question presented is whether dismissal of this case
should be premised on petitioner's failure to file a timely
petition under section 6213(a) or on respondent's failure to
issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212.
Petitioner contends that he did not receive the notice of
deficiency and that the notice is invalid because it was not
mailed to him at his last known address.
Although the phrase "last known address" is not defined in
the Internal Revenue Code or in the regulations thereunder, we
have held that a taxpayer's last known address is the address
shown on the taxpayer's most recently filed return, absent clear
and concise notice of a change of address. Abeles v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988); see King v.
Commissioner, supra at 681. In deciding whether respondent
mailed a notice to a taxpayer at the taxpayer's "last known
address", the relevant inquiry "pertains to respondent's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011