- 9 -
On March 5, 1999, respondent filed a motion to dismiss
docket No. 1372-99 for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that
the second petition filed with respect to the 1998 notice of
deficiency was not filed timely, nor did petitioner, a dissolved
corporation, have the capacity to file, nor did the person filing
the petition have the authority to file on behalf of petitioner.
On March 16, 1999, the parties agreed to consolidate these
cases for hearing on the parties' respective motions.
OPINION
This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency is
based upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a
petition filed timely. See Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v.
Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In the cases here, the
parties filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as
described above. Respondent contends petitioner lacked the
capacity to file petitions because it had been dissolved under
Florida law, and, even if petitioner had such capacity, it did
not authorize the petitions filed in its name. Petitioner
contends that the notice of deficiency with respect to the
May 31, 1992, tax year was not sent to its last known address.
The question of jurisdiction is a fundamental question that
can be raised at any time by either party or by the Court. See
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