- 8 - note of the fact that petitioner received the deficiency notice for 1997, which was also mailed to her at the Grasonville address on January 19, 2000, within sufficient time to file a timely petition in respect of that notice. We also take note of respondent’s representation that the deficiency notice for 1998 was not returned to respondent by the U.S. Postal Service. Conclusion In view of the foregoing, we hold that the deficiency notice for 1998 was valid because it was sent to petitioner at her last known address. Accordingly, because petitioner did not file her petition within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502, we lack jurisdiction to redetermine petitioner’s tax liability for 1998, and we are left with no alternative but to grant respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.4 4 Although petitioner cannot pursue her case for 1998 in this Court, she is not without a judicial remedy. Specifically, petitioner may pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service, and, if her 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). Moreover, if petitioner did not receive the deficiency notice for 1998 within such time as to file a timely petition with this Court, petitioner may have administrative and judicial remedies before respondent may legally commence enforced collection action against her. See secs. 6330(c)(2)(B), 6320(c). Finally, we note that the granting of respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction will in no way preclude the parties from administratively resolving the substantive issues for 1998.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011