- 6 -
outside of the envelope in the upper left corner. He did not do
anything that would constitute clear and concise notification
that he had moved to a new, permanent address. We cannot find
that petitioner provided respondent with clear and concise notice
of his address change. Absent the proper notice, respondent
correctly relied upon the address used on petitioner's most
recently filed tax return. We find that the notice of deficiency
was valid when mailed to the Union Street address on September 9,
1998.
We hold that petitioner did not file his petition for
redetermination with this Court within the time prescribed by
sections 6213(a) and 7502. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to
redetermine the 1996 tax liability of petitioner. We grant
respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner is not without a judicial remedy. Petitioner may
pay the tax and file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue
Service. If the claim for refund is denied, then petitioner may
pursue his case in the appropriate Federal District Court or the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims. McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C.
138, 142 (1970).
To reflect the foregoing,
An order granting respondent's
motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction will be entered.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: May 25, 2011