-2-
We shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction. Section references are to the applicable
versions of the Internal Revenue Code. Rule references are to
the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Background1
On June 28, 2002, petitioner filed with the Court his
petition as to 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996.
Petitioner did not attach a notice of deficiency to his petition
as required by Rule 34(b)(8). In a statement attached to his
petition, petitioner alleged that he never received a notice of
deficiency for any of the above-referenced years. Respondent
issued a notice of deficiency for 1991 to petitioner on January
5, 1996. Respondent did not issue a notice of deficiency to
petitioner for any of the other years.
Discussion
The 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. It is sufficient
1 This background section is based on the undenied
allegations in and the exhibit attached to respondent’s motion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011