Don Weber II - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          679 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Teel v.                     
          Commissioner, 248 F.2d 749, 751 (10th Cir. 1957), affg. 27 T.C.             
          375 (1956); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 810 (1987);                 
          Frieling v. Commissioner, supra at 52.                                      
               We further hold that the courtesy copy of the income tax               
          notice that respondent sent to petitioner on August 4, 2003, was            
          not a notice of determination under section 6320 or 6330;                   
          therefore, it could not serve to revive the 30-day filing period.           
          See Teel v. Commissioner, supra; Lerer v. Commissioner, 52 T.C.             
          358, 362-366 (1969); Powell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-108;           
          Schoenfeld v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-303, n.2.                       
               Finally, we do not have the authority to extend our                    
          jurisdiction in this case notwithstanding the fact that                     
          petitioner did not receive the notice of determination within the           
          30-day filing period.  The Court’s jurisdiction is statutorily              
          prescribed under sections 6320 and 6330, and we may not extend              
          the 30-day period for filing a petition for lien or levy action.            
          Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); see Lamont v.                 
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-469.                                          
               Consistent with the preceding discussion, we shall grant               
          respondent’s motion to dismiss, in that we lack jurisdiction to             











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011