- 7 -
petitioners at the Collins address), which states on its face
that: (1) “you have 90 days from the date of this letter * * *
to file a petition with the United States Tax Court for a
redetermination of the deficiency” and (2) the “Last Day To File
A Petition With The United States Tax Court” is “July 14 1999".
Nor does it matter that the parties to the District Court
proceeding agreed to dismiss that case without prejudice to
petitioners’ challenging respondent’s determination in the
appropriate forum. Petitioners’ reliance on the equitable powers
of this and the equitable powers of the District Court to extend
or otherwise toll the 90-day statutory period is unfounded under
the facts herein.6
We hold that we lack jurisdiction over this case because
petitioners failed to petition this Court within the applicable
90-day period; accordingly, we shall dismiss this case for that
reason. Our dismissal does not leave petitioners without a right
to contest respondent's determination in the appropriate forum.
Petitioners may, if they desire, pay the tax claimed due by
respondent, file with respondent a claim for refund of any amount
purportedly overpaid, and if and when respondent denies that
claim, sue respondent for a refund in a United States District
6 We find nothing in the record to support petitioners’
naked assertion that the District Court remanded their case to
this Court or otherwise allowed them to petition this Court
effective as of the date of their District Court filing. Thus,
we need not and do not decide petitioners’ argument that the
District Court has the power to do so.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011