- 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