- 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