- 9 -
Third, respondent sought to obtain a forwarding address from
petitioner’s brother, but the brother was unable to provide that
information.
Fourth, petitioner continued to have a close connection with
the Ulloa Street address as demonstrated by the fact that he
regarded it as his “leave address” on his request for paternity
leave in June 1997 when his wife was expecting a baby.
Finally, neither notice of deficiency was returned to
respondent by the Postal Service as undeliverable.6
Conclusion
Because petitioner did not file his petition with the Court
within the time prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502, we lack
jurisdiction to redetermine petitioner’s tax liability for the
years in issue. Accordingly, we shall grant respondent's motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, as supplemented.7
6 Respondent has not indicated that any prenotice
correspondence that may have been sent to the Ulloa Street
address was returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable. If
such had been the case, we would have expected that fact to have
been brought to our attention by respondent in the supplement to
the motion to dismiss.
7 Although petitioner cannot pursue his case in this Court,
he is not without a judicial remedy. Specifically, petitioner
may pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal
Revenue Service, and, if his claim is denied, sue for a refund in
the appropriate Federal District Court or the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142
(1970).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011