- 6 -
of jurisdiction.
However, in view of petitioner's contention that the notice
of deficiency was mailed to an address that “does not exist”,
which contention we regard as tantamount to a contention that the
notice of deficiency was not mailed to petitioner’s last known
address, the issue for decision is whether the dismissal of this
case should be based on petitioner's failure to file a timely
petition under section 6213(a) or whether dismissal should be
based on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of
deficiency under section 6212. If jurisdiction is lacking
because of respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of
deficiency, we shall dismiss on that ground, rather than for lack
of a timely filed petition. Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
729, 735-736 (1989), affd. without published opinion 935 F.2d
1282 (3d Cir. 1991); Weinroth v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 430, 435
(1980); Keeton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 377, 379-380 (1980).
Although the phrase “last known address" is not defined in
the Internal Revenue Code, we have held that absent clear and
concise notice of a change of address, a taxpayer's last known
address is the address shown on the taxpayer’s return that was
most recently filed at the time that the notice was issued. King
v. Commissioner, supra at 681; Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
1019, 1035 (1988); see sec. 301.6212-2, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
In deciding whether the Commissioner mailed a notice to a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011