Danny C. Ly - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          with this Court a petition to redetermine respondent’s                      
          determination that petitioner had a $1,560 Federal income tax               
          deficiency for 2003.2  The petition was mailed to this Court by             
          certified mail in an envelope that bears a U.S. postmark of Mar.            
          10, 2005.  Respondent’s determination is reflected in a notice of           
          deficiency that was mailed to petitioner on November 22, 2004.              
          Respondent mailed this notice to petitioner’s last known address            
          of 215 W. Las Flores Ave., Arcadia, California 91007.                       
               Petitioner bears the burden of proving that this Court has             
          jurisdiction to decide this case.  Cassell v. Commissioner, 72              
          T.C. 313, 317-318 (1979).  It is well established that our                  
          jurisdiction requires 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.  Sec. 6213(a); Cross v. Commissioner,             
          98 T.C. 613, 615 (1992).  Section 6213(a) provides that where a             
          notice of deficiency is addressed to an individual within the               
          United States, the taxpayer may file with this Court a petition             
          to redetermine the deficiency within 90 days of the mailing of              
          that notice of deficiency.  Section 7502(a) provides that in                
          general, timely mailing is treated as timely filing if a petition           
          is delivered to the Court by U.S. mail after the time period                



               2  When this petition was filed, petitioner lived in                   
          Arcadia, California.  Petitioner’s petition stated that “TAXPAYER           
          HAS ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIONS TO CLAIM.”                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011