- 2 - jurisdiction in this case. Petitioners also argue that equity demands that respondent’s motion be denied because the time in which a petition may be filed with the Court as to the notice of deficiency at hand has apparently expired. We shall grant respondent’s motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Unless otherwise noted, section references are to the applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code. Background On December 13, 2004, respondent issued to petitioners a notice of deficiency determining a $42,299 deficiency in their 2002 Federal income tax and an $8,460 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). On February 11, 2005, petitioners filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. On March 21, 2005, petitioners petitioned this Court to redetermine the deficiency and accuracy- related penalty reflected in the notice of deficiency for 2002. On August 18, 2005, petitioners received a discharge in the bankruptcy case. Discussion This Court’s jurisdiction in a deficiency case hinges on a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition, and we must dismiss a case in which either one or the other is not present. See sec. 6213(a); Cross v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 613, 615 (1992). Respondent asserts that the Court lacks jurisdictionPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011