- 5 -
address, on December 8, 1994, and this satisfies the requirements
of section 6213. Respondent asserts that the mailing of another
notice of deficiency for the same tax year with a new date does
not invalidate the prior valid notice of deficiency.
Discussion
This Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency
depends upon 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) expressly authorizes
respondent, 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 respondent mails the
notice of deficiency to the taxpayer’s “last known address”.
Sec. 6212(b); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983).
If a deficiency notice is mailed to the taxpayer’s last known
address, actual receipt of the notice is immaterial. King v.
Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. 88 T.C.
1042 (1987). A misaddressed notice of deficiency that is
returned to the Commissioner undelivered is null and void.
Mulvania v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 1376, 1380-1381 (9th Cir.
1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-98. The taxpayer generally has 90
days from the date the notice of deficiency is mailed to file a
petition in this Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.
Sec. 6213(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011