- 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