Jose Guaba - Page 6




                                         - 6 -                                           
          filed until November 29, 1999--over a year after the mailing of                
          the notice of deficiency.  Although petitioner contends that he                
          did not receive the notice of deficiency, there is no allegation               
          that the notice was not mailed to petitioner's last known                      
          address.  Moreover, respondent informed the Court that there is                
          no indication that the notice was returned to respondent                       
          undelivered.  We note that the notice of deficiency was mailed to              
          the same Tampa address where petitioner was residing at the time               
          he filed the petition in this case.  Under the circumstances, we               
          conclude that respondent mailed a valid notice of deficiency to                
          petitioner on October 28, 1998, and that petitioner failed to                  
          file a petition within the 90-day period prescribed in section                 
          6213(a).  It follows that we lack jurisdiction over the petition.              
               Petitioner contends that the letter that the Atlanta Service              
          Center mailed to him on August 23, 1999, constitutes a notice of               
          deficiency.  We disagree.  It is well settled that the Court                   
          lacks jurisdiction over a petition that is filed with respect to               
          a letter from the Commissioner that was not intended to                        
          constitute a notice of deficiency.  See Lerer v. Commissioner, 52              
          T.C. 358, 362-366 (1969); Powell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                   
          1998-108; Schoenfeld v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-303.  In                 
          applying this principle in the present case, we are satisfied                  
          that respondent did not intend for the August 23, 1999, letter to              
          be considered a notice of deficiency.                                          







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011