- 5 -
At the time he filed the petition, petitioner resided in
California. The petition did not comply with the Rules of the
Court as to the form and content of a proper petition.
On December 4, 2001, the Court ordered petitioner to file an
amended petition on or before February 4, 2002, on the form
enclosed with the order.
On February 5, 2002, petitioner was paroled.
On February 19, 2002, petitioner filed an amended petition,
dated January 28, 2002,3 with the Court on the form provided to
him disputing his tax liabilities for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
Discussion
Our 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); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988);
Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); Pyo v.
Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). The Court’s jurisdiction
is strictly limited by statute, and unless a petition is filed
within the time prescribed by statute, we lack jurisdiction and
must dismiss the case. See Estate of Moffat v. Commissioner, 46
T.C. 499, 501 (1966).
Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes the Commissioner, after
determining a deficiency, to send a notice of deficiency to the
3 See supra note 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011