- 4 -
filed. Petitioners filed an objection to respondent’s motion to
dismiss asserting that their petition was timely filed following
the District Court’s dismissal of their refund action.
Petitioners argue that they will not have any remedy if this
Court dismisses their case. Respondent filed a reply to
petitioners’ objection.
This matter was called for hearing at the Court’s motions
session in Washington, D.C. Counsel for respondent appeared at
the hearing and offered argument in support of respondent’s
motion to dismiss. There was no appearance by or on behalf of
petitioners at the hearing, nor did petitioners file a statement
pursuant to Rule 50(c), the provisions of which were explained in
the Court’s Order calendaring respondent’s motion for hearing.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may
exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by
Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This
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. The taxpayer, in turn,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011