- 23 -
determination. Respondent points out that the petition would
have been timely if mailed on the date shown on the petition.
Respondent notes that cases involving a notice of deficiency have
recognized that actual receipt of the notice without prejudicial
delay is sufficient for the notice to be effective even though
not sent to the taxpayer’s last known address. Assuming that
this rationale could have some application in deciding when the
90-day period referred to in section 6015(e)(1)(A)(ii) begins, we
find that the improperly addressed notice did result in
prejudicial delay.
In a deficiency proceeding, our jurisdiction 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). Section 6212(a) authorizes the Commissioner to send a
notice of deficiency to a taxpayer by certified mail or
registered mail. The taxpayer must generally file a petition to
this Court within 90 days after the date the notice of deficiency
is mailed. Sec. 6213(a). Section 6212(b)(1) provides that it
“shall be sufficient” for jurisdictional purposes if the
Commissioner mails the notice of deficiency to the taxpayer at
the taxpayer’s last known address. Frieling v. Commissioner, 81
T.C. 42, 52 (1983). It is well settled that, although a
deficiency notice properly mailed to a taxpayer’s last known
address provides the Commissioner with a “safe harbor” under
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011