- 6 -
There is no question that the petition was not timely filed
and that we lack jurisdiction over the petition filed herein. We
must decide, however, whether the matter should be dismissed
against respondent because the notice of deficiency was invalid
or rescinded, or against petitioner because the petition was in
response to a valid notice of deficiency but was untimely.
Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), affd.
without published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991); see also
Mollet v. Commissioner, 757 F.2d 286 (11th Cir. 1985), affg. 82
T.C. 618 (1984).
A taxpayer to whom a notice of deficiency has been properly
mailed cannot defeat actual notice by deliberately refusing
delivery of the notice of deficiency. Patmon & Young Profl.
Corp. v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216, 218 (6th Cir. 1995), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1993-143; Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 611
(2000).
Section 6212(d) authorizes the Commissioner, with the
consent of the taxpayer, to rescind any notice of deficiency
mailed to the taxpayer. If a notice of deficiency is rescinded,
the taxpayer has no right to file a petition with the Court based
on such a notice. Hanashiro v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-78;
Powell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-108. No statutory
provision specifically addresses whether respondent may
unilaterally abandon or withdraw a notice of deficiency or the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011