- 10 -
January 10, 2006, at 9 a.m. in San Antonio, Texas, in a
designated courtroom in order to precede the scheduled trial of
the case that week. Petitioner failed to make an appearance at
the hearing.
OPINION
I. Jurisdiction
There are two prerequisites to this Court’s jurisdiction to
redetermine a deficiency: (1) The issuance of a valid notice of
deficiency by the Commissioner, and (2) the timely filing of a
petition with the Court by the taxpayer. See Rule 13(a), (c);
Rochelle v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 356, 358 (2001) (and cases
cited thereat), affd. 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002).
Validity of Notice of Deficiency
Petitioner contends that the notice of deficiency is invalid
because it lists incorrectly the last date on which petitioner
could file a timely petition with this Court. Petitioner relies
on section 6213(a) and the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA), Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3463(a), 112
Stat. 767, for his argument that the notice of deficiency is
invalid.
Pursuant to section 6213(a), a taxpayer has 90 days (or 150
days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United
States) from the date that the notice of deficiency is mailed to
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008