- 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 jurisdiction
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011