- 8 -
observe that petitioner actually received the notice of
deficiency, as demonstrated by the fact that she attached a copy
thereof to her petition.5
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, we hold that the notice of
deficiency was valid because it was sent to petitioner at her
last known address. Accordingly, because petitioner did not file
her petition within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or
section 7502, we lack jurisdiction to redetermine petitioner’s
tax liability for 1999, and we are left with no alternative but
to grant respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.6
4(...continued)
given the fact that the notice of deficiency was, in fact,
delivered to petitioner, rather than returned to respondent by
the Postal Service. Cf. sec. 301.6212-2(b), Proced. & Admin.
Regs.
5 Petitioner does not allege that she suffered any
prejudicial delay in the receipt of the notice of deficiency.
6 Although petitioner cannot pursue her case in this Court,
she is not without a judicial remedy. Specifically, petitioner
may pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal
Revenue Service, and, if her claim is denied, sue for a refund in
the appropriate Federal District Court or the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142
(1970).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011