- 6 -
argument in support of the motion to dismiss, as supplemented.
In particular, counsel argued that petitioners are not entitled
to relief under section 7508A and that the petition in this case
should be dismissed on the ground that it was not timely filed.
There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioners at the
hearing, nor did petitioners file any statement pursuant to Rule
50(c). However, after the hearing, petitioners filed an
objection to respondent’s motion in which they state that the
petition mailed to the Court on September 15, 2001, was sent by
regular, first-class mail and that they are therefore unable to
provide the Court with documentary proof of mailing.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. The
Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the
issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed
petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27
(1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988).
Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes the Commissioner, after
determining a deficiency, to send a notice of deficiency to the
taxpayer by certified or registered mail. It is sufficient for
jurisdictional purposes if the Commissioner mails the notice of
deficiency to the taxpayer’s “last known address”. Sec. 6212(b);
Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983). The taxpayer,
in turn, has 90 days (or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011