Audrey Carlisle - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
          is premised on the ground that respondent failed to send valid              
          notices of deficiency to her last known address.  Respondent’s              
          motion is premised on the ground that petitioner failed to file a           
          timely petition in response to a valid notice.  Because the                 
          jurisdiction of this Court is limited by statute and attaches               
          only upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the              
          timely filing of a petition, this case must be dismissed for lack           
          of jurisdiction.  The only question is on whose motion it will be           
          dismissed.  Where jurisdiction is lacking because of the                    
          Commissioner’s failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency, we            
          dismiss on that ground, rather than on the ground that the                  
          taxpayer failed to file a timely petition.  See Shelton v.                  
          Commissioner, 63 T.C. 193 (1974); O’Brien v. Commissioner, 62               
          T.C. 543, 548 (1974); Heaberlin v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 58, 59             
          (1960); see also Brannon’s of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69             
          T.C. 999 (1978) (the Court has jurisdiction to decide issues                
          regarding its jurisdiction).                                                
          Background                                                                  
               Petitioner’s tax returns for 1995 and 1996 were under                  
          examination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 1998.                  
          Petitioner’s case was assigned to Vicki Murdock, a tax-examining            
          assistant at the IRS Ogden, Utah, Service Center.  Ms. Murdock              
          handled petitioner’s case from April 1998 to July 1999.                     








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011