- 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