- 9 -
and the petition is untimely, then the petition will have to be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Keeton v.
Commissioner, 74 T.C. 377, 379 (1980). However, if jurisdiction
is also lacking because of respondent’s failure to issue a valid
notice of deficiency, then the case will be dismissed on the
latter ground, rather than for lack of a timely filed petition.
See DeWelles v. United States, 378 F.2d 37, 39 (9th Cir. 1967);
Keeton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. at 379, and cases there cited;
see also Mulvania v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1985),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-98.
B. Last Known Address
Because of the Court’s concern about jurisdiction, we
informally raised with the parties5 the question of whether
respondent’s use of a 12-digit ZIP Code might have an impact on
whether respondent sent the notice of deficiency to petitioners’
last known address.
A notice of deficiency serves the purpose of the statutory
scheme if (1) it provides notice to the taxpayer that the
Commissioner has determined a deficiency against the taxpayer,
and (2) it is received by the taxpayer in time to provide an
5It is well settled that this Court can proceed in a case
only if we have jurisdiction and that any party, or the Court sua
sponte, can question jurisdiction at any time, even after the
case has been tried and briefed. See Normac, Inc. & Normac
International v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 146-147 (1988); Kahle
v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1063 n.3 (1987), and cases there cited.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011