- 4 -
Discussion
General Principles
This Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in
income tax depends on the issuance of a valid notice of
deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge
v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Section 6212(a) expressly
authorizes respondent, after determining a deficiency, to send a
notice of deficiency to the taxpayer by certified or registered
mail. It is sufficient for jurisdictional purposes if respondent
mails the notice of deficiency to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's
“last known address”. Sec. 6212(b); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81
T.C. 42, 52 (1983). The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days, or 150
days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United
States, to file a petition with this Court for a redetermination
of the contested deficiency. Sec. 6213(a). By virtue of section
7502, a petition that is timely mailed is deemed to be timely
filed.
The Parties’ Positions
It is clear in the present case that respondent mailed the
notice of deficiency to petitioner on March 22, 2007. See
Magazine v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 321, 327 n.8 (1987) (holding
that Postal Service Form 3877 represents direct evidence of the
date of mailing of the notice of deficiency); see also Clough v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008