§6212 — Notice of deficiency

2006), overruling Bradley v.

The restriction on nonconsensual rescissions found in section 6212(d), unlike the restriction on further deficiency letters found in section 6212(c), is not limited to situations where the Secretary determines an additional deficiency of income tax (or certain other taxes) for the same taxable year.5 Our straightforward conclusion, derived from the plain text of sections 6213(a) and 6212(d), is that we are required to treat the Petition as t

The notices ofdeficiency issued to petitioners for their 2007 taxable years are readily distinguishable from the notice at issue in Seg.

The notices ofdeficiency issued to petitioners for their 2007 taxable years are readily distinguishable from the notice at issue in Seg.

And because the prohibition in subsection (b)(2)(B) applies only "ifan individual has filed a separate return," that prohibition does not apply here.

- 21 - ofsection 7436(b) to these other sections eliminates any impulse we might have had to read part ofsection 6212 into section 7436(b). Our discussion ofsection 6532(a)(1) supra part C also supports our analysis here. We conclude thatthe 90- day limitation does not apply in this case because no notice ofdetermination was sent by certified or registered mail and thus the petition is timely." "In keeping with its conclusion that the analysis ofthe opinion ofthe Court "simply do[es] not work",

Commissioner , supra, is distinguishable . In Scar , the Commissioner sent the taxpayer a notice of deficiency that . had no direct connection with the taxpayer and was not based . on an inspection of the taxpayer's Federal income .tax return. The notice of deficiency was held to be invalid on its face because the Commissioner did not determine a deficiency as required under section 6212.(a) .

Section 6223, unlike section 6212, does not use the term "last known address" .

We do not agree with petitioner, however, that those cases suggest that the notice in this case is fatally defective.

Accordingly, we hold respondent’s additional tax assessment of $20,904 against petitioners was invalidly made since no Notice of Deficiency was issued.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6212,1 the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued a statutory Notice of Deficiency (“NOD”) to petitioner, Inga I.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6212,1 the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued a statutory notice of deficiency (“NOD”) to petitioner Lawrence L.

We hold that the notice of deficiency is valid.

47 4 [*4] MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6212,1 the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued statutory notices of deficiency (“NOD”) to petitioners Palmarini Inc.

Mihalik (“the Mihaliks”), a statutory notice of deficiency (“SNOD”) pursuant to section 6212,1 determining a $2,862 deficiency for the year 2016.

Pursuant to section 6212, the IRS sent a statutory notice of deficiency (“NOD”) to Hallmark’s last known address, by certified mail, 1 The filing deadline is 90 days for Hallmark and most other taxpayers and is 150 days when the deficiency notice is addressed to a taxpayer outside the United States.

Larkin, a statutorynotice of deficiency ("SNOD") pursuant to section 6212¹ on November 15, 2013, for the Larkins' 2008, 2009, and 2010 tax years.

x A: Income items ..........................................82 AppendixB: Deductions............................................87 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") issued to petitioner, Alka Sham, a statutory notice ofdeficiency ("SNOD") pursuant to section 6212¹ on February 17, 2017, determining deficiencies in Ms.

Petitioner nonetheless argues that section 6212 requires all statutory notices ofdeficiency to be signed by the Secretary ofthe Treasury or his delegate.

- 12 - deficiency issued pursuant to section 6212, and the IRS acknowledges that Mr.

Legal Background Section 6212 provides that a notice ofdeficiency must be sent by certified or registered mail to the taxpayer at his last known address.

McGaugh, a statutory notice ofdeficiency pursuant to section 6212¹ on March 17, 2014, for Mr.

- 3 - OPINION THORNTON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6212(a),¹ respondent determined deficiencies in tax for petitioners, Lawrence and Lorna Graev, of$237,481 for 2004 and $412,620 for 2005, resulting from the disallowance ofcharitable contribution deductions the Graevs claimed for those years.

box was his last known address pursuant to section 6212 and that respondent mailed the notice of - 8 - [*8] deficiencyto petitioner's last known address.4 _S_egkl.

Rogers, a statutorynotice ofdeficiency pursuant to section 6212¹ on December 29, 2009, for petitioners' 2004 tax year.

6212 provides in pertinent part as follows: SEC.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6212,1 the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") issued to petitioners, Keith and Ena Dunford, a statutory notice of deficiency on October 30, 2009, for the Dunfords' 2005 and 2006 tax years.

GUSTAFSON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6212,1 the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") issued statutory notices ofdeficiency to petitioners Lawrence F.

Carothers a statutory notice of deficiency with respect to 2003, pursuant to section 6212(a), which Mr.

Lee Bailey1 two statutory notices ofdeficiency on November 6, 2007, pursuant to section 6212,2 showing the IRS's determinations ofthe following IFor the years 1993 and 1994, the IRS issued a notice ofdeficiency to Mr.

Lee Bailey1 two statutory notices ofdeficiency on November 6, 2007, pursuant to section 6212,2 showing the IRS's determinations ofthe following IFor the years 1993 and 1994, the IRS issued a notice ofdeficiency to Mr.

MEMORANDUM OPINION MORRISON, Judge: The IRS issued to petitioner Alec Jeffrey Megibow a statutory notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212.1 The notice reflected the IRS' determination of a $506 income-tax deficiency for the tax year 2007.

The taxpayer contended that the joint notice of deficiency was· invalid because, pursuant to section 6212(b) (2), a joint notice of deficiency was appropriate only where the taxpayers had filed a joint income tax return.

On December 312, 2008, the IRS issued to the Pangs a statutory notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212, showing a deficiency of $64,969.in income tax for tax year 2004.

Anyanwu a notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212 showing a deficiency in income tax of $1,628 for the tax year 2005.

Norberg.was in actual or constructive receipt of property of decedent and thus "as statutory executor.within the meaning of section 2203, was the proper person to whom to issue the notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212 (b) (31) and the proper party to bring the instant case pursuant to Tax Court Rule 60(a)".

GUSTAFSON, Judge: On March 21, 2008, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued to petitioners Todd and Carolyn Dagrest a notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212,2 determining a deficiency of $981,980 in income tax for 2003 and an accompanying accuracy-related penalty of $196,369 under section 6662(a).

Williams III a notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212,1 showing the IRS's determination of the following deficiencies and penalties for tax years 1993 through 2000: Penalties Year Deficiency Sec.

deficiency in 2007,2 pursuant to section 6212,3 showing the IRS's determination of the following deficiencies in income tax and accompanying additions to tax for(cid:127)failure`to file under sectio n 6651(a)(1), failure to pay under section 665'1 (a) (2) , and failure; to pay estimated taxes under section 6654 for tax years 2001 through 2004

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: In December 2007 the Interna Revenue Service (IRS) issued to petitioner Sandra Lee Bennett a statutory notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212,1 shown ng the IRS' s 'Unless otherwise indicated, all citations of s ctions refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code ; 26 .U.S.C ), as amended, and all citations of Rules refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure .

Langille on Apri l SERVED Mar 18 2010 0 -2- 14, 2008, pursuant to section 6212,1 determining the following income tax deficiencies and fraud penalties : Fraud penalty Year Deficiency Sec .

Nelson a statutory notice of deficiency on February 13, 2008, pursuant to section 6212, ' "'Unless otherwise indicated, all citations of sections refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ( 26.U .S .C .

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued to petitioner Richard Enrique Ulloa four statutory notices of deficiency pursuant to section 6212,1 showing the IRS's determination of the following deficiencies in income tax and accompanying additions to tax for failure to file under section 6651(a)(1), failure to pay under section 6651(a)(2), and failure to pay estimated taxes under section 6654 for tax years 2003 through 2006 : 'Unless othe

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINIO N GUSTAFSON, Judge : The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued to petitioners Robert Weisberg and Julie Peterson a notice of deficiency for taxable year 2003 pursuant to section 6212,1 showing the IRS's determination of a,deficiency in income tax of $100,803, an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file timely, and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) .2 Petitioners brought this case pursuant to section 6213(a), asking this C

OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge : The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued to petitioner Shoukri Osman Saleh-Abdel-Fattah a notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212,1 showing the IRS's determination of the following deficiencies,in income tax, additions to tax for failure to file under section 6651(a)(1), and accuracy-related penalties under section 6662 for tax years 2005, 2006, and 2007 : Addition to Tax Accuracy-Related Penalty Year Deficiency Sec .

Helmick a statutory notice of deficiency on April 11, 2006, pursuant to section 6212,' showing the IRS's determinations of the following deficiencies in income tax and accompanying failure-to-file additions to tax and accuracy-related penalties under sections 6651(a) (1) and 6662,2 respectively, for tax years 1997 to 2002 : 'Unless otherwise indicated, all citations of sections ref

Williams a statutory notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212,1 showing the IRS's determination of deficiencies in income tax and accompanying fraud and accuracy-related penaltie s under sections .6663 and .6662, respectively, for all 8 of those years .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge : The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issue d e F `t'o-pet°tioner, Leslie Freeman, Jr ., two statutory notices of deficiency on February 21, 2008, pursuant to section 6212,1 showing determinations of the following deficiencies in income tax and accompanying failure-to-file additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for tax years 1999 and 2000 : Addition to Tax Tax Year Deficiency Sec .

Where the assessment is of an income-tax,deficiency determined by the IRS, that assessment is deferred by the deficiency process : The IRS'issues an otice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212, and-section 6213 .gives the taxpayer 90 ..days to file a petition with the,Tax Court .

Enayat a statutory notice of deficiency on October 17, 2006, pursuant to section 6212,1 showing the following.

Anderson a statutory notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212,1 showing the IRS's determination of the 'Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to sections refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U .S .C .), as amended, and all citations to Rules refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure .

However, pursuant to section 6503(a)(1), the period of limitations on assessment is suspended during the 90-day period following the mailing of a notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212 and, where the taxpayer does not petition the Court in response to a notice of deficiency, for an additional 60 days thereafter .

Carothers a statutory notice of deficiency with respect to 2003, pursuant to section 6212(a), which Mr .

Because petitioners’ reasons as to why they did not file a petition are irrelevant,11 we hold that petitioners are not entitled to raise as an issue their underlying tax liability.

A notice of deficiency issued by the IRS pursuant to § 6212 is the taxpayer's jurisdictional “ticket to the Tax Court.” Bokum v.

Accordingly, we hold that a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330 is sufficient if such notice is sent by certified or registered mail to a taxpayer at the taxpayer’s last known address.

A joint return cannot be made after there has been mailed to either spouse, with respect to the taxable year, a notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212, and the spouse receiving such notice files a petition to the Tax Court within the time prescribed in section 6213.

Despite the fact that petitioner filed his petition beyond the statutory period, we hold that the notice in this case is valid.

at 498, we analogized a notice of determination issued pursuant to section 6330(c)(3) to a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to section 6212, and said that the notice of determination is the jurisdictional “equivalent of a notice of deficiency.”6 In the context of a 5(...continued) jurisdiction over a sec.

o proceed against one or more partners, for deficiencies attributable to partnership items or affected items, beyond the 3-year minimum period, but within the partner’s section 6501 period, respondent should directly notify such partners of the partnership proceeding by notices of deficiency issued pursuant to section 6212.3 Assuming that I am right that Maxwell v.

In pertinent parts, section 6211 defines a deficiency, section 6212 provides for a notice of deficiency, section 6213(a) gives a taxpayer the right to file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency, and section 6214(a) establishes our jurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount of any deficiency.

Based on information subsequently received from petitioners' counsel, respondent abated the assessments for 1989 and 1990 and, with petitioners' consent, attempted to rescind the related penalties-only March 14, 1997, notices pursuant to section 6212(d).

The fact that section 7436 does not require filing a petition within 90 days after a determination is made (unless the notice is sent by certified or registered mail) contrasts with section 6212 relating to our deficiency jurisdiction.

the notice • of determination was mailed on January 29, 2004, by certified mail, to the 70 Maple Avenue address. See id at 259 & n.3 . (postmarked copy of certified mail list sufficient to establish notice of determination was mailed for purposes of section 6212). We conclude, therefore, that the notice of determination was mailed in accordance with section 6212(a) and (b). The 30-day period for filing an appeal of respondent's determination with this Court expired on Monday, March 1, 2004. See

Based on the above uncontested facts, the estate contends that respondent failed to mail the notice of deficiency to the taxpayer in order to satisfy section 6212 and that, therefore, the notice of deficiency is invalid, depriving this Court of jurisdiction over this matter.

— The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s delegate shall include on each notice of deficiency under section 6212 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 the date determined by such Secretary (or delegate) as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993- 277, affd. without published opinion 69 F.2d 543 (9th Cir. 1995). Also, section 6065 does not require that the notice of deficiency be signed under penalties of perjury. Section 6065 applies to returns and other documents filed with respondent; it does not apply to notices of deficiency. Scruggs v. C

ner. Frank C. McClanahan, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION COLVIN, Judge: This case is before the Court on petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner is not valid under section 6212. Petitioner also requests that we - 2 - certify this case for immediate appeal if we do not grant his motion. Respondent determined that petitioner had an income tax deficiency of $369,390 for 1987 and was liable for additions to tax for

We stated that, although section 6212 allowed respondent to send deficiency notices by certified mail, respondent could not use certified mail to send abroad the deficiency notice in question because the U.S.

The mailing of a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer, pursuant to section 6212, suspends the limitations period-- 9Respondent does not contend that sec.

viduals was not part of the notice of determination sent to petitioner in March 1998. Petitioner asserts: “The shortcoming is tantamount to failure to specify the amount of the determined deficiency anywhere in a Notice of Deficiency in a case under I.R.C. Section 6212.” Respondent argues that the standard to be applied to a notice of determination is whether it advises the taxpayer that respondent has determined that, for specified time periods, some or all of its workers are to be reclassified

Section 6213(a), titled “Time for filing petition and restriction on assessment,” provides: Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of defi- ciency authorized in section 6212 is mailed .

("Uniband”), pursuant to section 6212 on November 28, 2005, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) determined income tax deficiencies of $220,851 for 1996, $754,758 for 1997, and $308,498 for 1998.

The validity ofthe notice ofdeficiency is governed by a statute enacted by Congress, i.e., section 6212, not by the pleading rules ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.

Respondent notes that “Family is itself subject to the TEFRA partnership rules requiring the issuance of a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment to Family’s partners under section 6223(f) [sic] rather than a notice of deficiency under section 6212.” Motion to stay 10.

142 (1940), the Board of Tax Appeals held that there was no suspension of the period of limitations upon assessment when the IRS sent a notice that was not proper under former section 272, the predecessor of section 6212, that had prompted the taxpayer to file a petition in a prior case.

She was the proper individual to receive the notice of deficiency under section 6212 and had the capacity to contest the notice of deficiency upon which this case is based.

--- MAJORITY --- Gustafson, Judge: On March 21, 2008, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued to petitioners Todd and Carolyn Dagres a notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212, determining a deficiency of $981,980 in income tax for 2003 and an accompanying accuracy-related penalty of $196,369 under section 6662(a).

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Gustafson, Judge: The Internal Revenue Service (irs) issued to petitioner Shoukri Osman Saleh Abdel-Fattah a notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212, showing the IRS’s determination of the following deficiencies in income tax, additions to tax for failure to file under section 6651(a)(1), and accuracy-related penalties under section 6662 for tax years 2005, 2006, and 2007: Year Deficiency Addition to tax sec.

767, which was enacted on July 22, 1998, requires : The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall include on each notice of deficiency under section 6212 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 the date determined by such Secretary (or delegate) as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court .

We have held the method that the Congress specifically authorized i n subsections (a) and (b) of section 6212 for sending notices of deficiency should suffice for section 6330(d) notices of determination .

Section 6212 does not require actual receipt by a taxpayer of the notice of deficiency . If the notice of deficiency is sent - 9 - by certified mail to the taxpayer's last known address, actual receipt of the notice is immaterial . Sec . 6212(b)(1) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 (1983) . Thus, in Weber v . Commissioner, supra at 26

Section 6212 requires only that the Secretary mail the notice of deficiency by certified or registered mail to the taxpayer ' s last known address . A notice of deficiency is valid if it is mailed directly to a taxpayer at the taxpayer' s last known address, even if the taxpayer directs that a copy of all communications be sent to the taxpayer' s r

For the Secretary to issue a notice of deficiency, section 6212 requires that he determine a deficiency, send notice of that deficiency to the taxpayer's last known address, include with that notice notice of the taxpayer's right to contact the local office of the taxpayer advocate, and provide the taxpayer with contact information for that office .

A notice of deficiency described in section 6212 must also comply with section 7522 .

Section 6212 requires that the notice be sent. Even if the signature block does not comply with the Internal Revenue Manual, the rules of the Manual have been held to be merely directory and not mandatory.9 See Urban v. Commissioner, 964 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1992). The Commissioner sent petitioner the notices of deficiency for the taxable years

Section 6212 requires that the notice be sent. Even if the signature block does not comply with the Internal Revenue Manual, the rules of the Manual have been held to be merely directory and not mandatory.9 See Urban v. Commissioner, 964 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1992). The Commissioner sent petitioner the notices of deficiency for the taxable years

A notice of deficiency described in section 6212 must also comply with section 7522.

A notice of deficiency issued by the IRS pursuant to § 6212 is the taxpayer’s jurisdictional “ticket to the Tax Court.” Bokum v.

Thus, the notices of deficiency were sent in a manner in compliance with, and valid under, section 6212 and corresponding regulations,7 requiring that a notice of deficiency be sent to a taxpayer’s last known address.

d not have an opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liabilities as provided by sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), we would hold, on the basis of the evidence in the record, that respondent properly mailed the notice of deficiency to petitioner for purposes of sec. 6212 and that the period of limitations had not run on the assessment of the liabilities in issue. Pursuant to sec. 6503(a), the period of limitations on assessment is suspended during the 90-day period following the mailing of a notice of defici

Petitioners further contend that the term “notice of deficiency” in section 7430(c)(7) should not be given the same meaning it has under section 6212, and that for purposes of section 7430(c)(7)(B)(ii) it is inconsequential that the reviewer’s proposal was neither issued nor sent to them.

Please note that Section 6212 states that “If the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax...he is authorized to send notice of such deficiency, etc., etc., etc.” However, the “Notice” I received was not sent by the Secretary, but by Gwen A Krauss, who is identified as being the Director of the IRS Service Center in Chamblee, Georgia, a

one-half of the interest included in her income by R because it was paid on a joint bank account, and (2) is not liable for the additions to tax. 1. Held: The notice of deficiency was timely issued and constitutes a valid notice of deficiency under sec. 6212, I.R.C. - 2 - 2. Held, further, R’s determinations of a tax deficiency and addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1), I.R.C., are sustained. 3. Held, further, R’s determination of an addition to tax under sec. 6654, I.R.C., is modified by appli

6212; Pendola v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 509, 513-514 (1968); Elmore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-123; Fox v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-277 n.4, affd. without published opinion 69 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 1995). Consistent with the foregoing, we reject petitioner’s contention that the notice of deficiency dated February 9, 2000, is invalid. We

has no authority to assess a different figure than the “$0.00" which petitioner assessed himself as owing for 1996 subtitle A taxes, the Secretary had no authority to determine that there was a deficiency in respect of subtitle A taxes, pursuant to §6212. Therefore, the “notice of deficiency” was a legal nullity for that reason, as well as because there is no evidence in the record to establish that the person who sent the document on behalf of the Secretary was delegated to do so by a delegatio

According to the bankruptcy court, because the nonrebate refund did not fall within the section 6213(b) assessment procedures or the section 6212 notice of deficiency procedures, the only recourse for respondent would have been an action to recover an erroneous refund under section 7405, for which the period of limitations had expired.

ext we consider the Grigoracis’ request that we review respondent’s determination of a deficiency for the Grigoracis’ 1996 tax year and a related penalty. Respondent initially adopted the position that the notice of deficiency was issued pursuant to section 6212. After the Court requested additional briefing by the parties, respondent claimed that the notice of deficiency is entirely an affected items notice of deficiency under section 6230(a)(2). Respondent argues that the notice was issued bef

und that the petition was not - 2 - timely filed pursuant to section 6213(a) or section 7502.1 With regard to the taxable year 2000, respondent contends that this case should be dismissed on the ground that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, has been sent to petitioner, nor has respondent made any other determination that would serve to confer jurisdiction on this Court.

ext we consider the Grigoracis' request that we review respondent's determination of a deficiency for the Grigoracis' 1996 tax year and a related penalty. Respondent initially adopted the position that the notice of deficiency was issued pursuant to section 6212. After the Court requested additional briefing by the parties, respondent claimed that the notice of deficiency is entirely an affected items notice of deficiency under section 6230(a)(2). Respondent argues that the notice was issued bef

ext we consider the Grigoracis’ request that we review respondent’s determination of a deficiency for the Grigoracis’ 1996 tax year and a related penalty. Respondent initially adopted the position that the notice of deficiency was issued pursuant to section 6212. After the Court requested additional briefing by the parties, respondent claimed that the notice of deficiency is entirely an affected items notice of deficiency under section 6230(a)(2). Respondent argues that the notice was issued bef

issue for decision is whether the dismissal of this case should be based on petitioner's failure to file a timely petition under section 6213(a) or whether dismissal should be based on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. If jurisdiction is lacking because of respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency, we shall dismiss on that ground, rather than for lack of a timely filed petition. Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), a

issue for decision is whether the dismissal of this case should be based on petitioner's failure to file a timely petition under section 6213(a) or whether dismissal should be based on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. If jurisdiction is lacking because of respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency, we shall dismiss on that ground, rather than for lack of a timely filed petition. Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), a

The Cherokee Drive address is therefore petitioners’ last known address within the meaning of section 6212, and the notice was properly mailed to them at that address.

mine the deficiency determined against that taxpayer in that notice of deficiency (see sec. 6213(a)4). See Normac, Inc. & Normac, International v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Accordingly, if respondent issued a valid notice of deficiency 3Sec. 6212 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: SEC. 6212. NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY. (a) In General.--If the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax imposed by subtitle A [relating to income taxes] * * * he is authorized

In pertinent parts, section 6211 defines a deficiency, section 6212 provides for a notice of deficiency, section 6213(a) gives a taxpayer the right to file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency, and section 6214(a) establishes our jurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount of any deficiency.

butable to partnership items or affected items, beyond the 3-year minimum period, but within the partner’s section 6501 period, respondent should directly notify such partners of the partnership proceeding by notices of deficiency issued pursuant to section 6212. Assuming that I am right that Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra, is wrong, my approach presents a technically more straightforward approach to the statute. D. Other Technical Considerations The majority reads the reference to “the period d

. - 22 - As stated above, because David came into actual possession of his father's assets, David is the statutory executor of Sloan’s estate pursuant to section 2203. As such, he was the proper individual to receive the notices of deficiency under section 6212. Accordingly, we hold that the notices of deficiency giving rise to docket Nos. 24986-97 and 24987-97 are valid. We now turn to whether David had authority to petition the Court on behalf of Sloan’s estate. David argues that because no fi

oner at her last known address, the issue presented is whether the dismissal of those 3 years should be based on petitioner's failure to file a timely petition under section 6213(a) or respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. If jurisdiction is lacking because of respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency, we will dismiss on that ground, rather than for lack of a timely-filed petition. Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), af

, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra. The question presented is whether dismissal of this case should be premised on petitioner's failure to file a timely petition under section 6213(a) or on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. Petitioner contends that he did not receive the notice of deficiency and that the notice is invalid because it was not mailed to him at his last known address. Although the phrase "last known address" is not defined in the Internal Reve

he ground that Gustavo and Maria Guerrero (petitioners) failed to file their petition within the time prescribed by section 6213(a), petitioners argue that dismissal should be based on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. There being no dispute that we lack jurisdiction over the petition filed herein, we must resolve the parties' dispute respecting the proper ground for dismissal. See Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), affd. without p

titioner at his last known address, the issue presented is whether the dismissal of this case should be based on petitioner's failure to file a timely petition under section 6213(a) or respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. If jurisdiction is lacking because of respondent's failure to issue a valid - 9 - notice of deficiency, we will dismiss on that ground, rather than for lack of a timely filed petition. Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (198

jurisdiction in this case. Nonetheless, we must decide whether dismissal of this case should be premised on petitioner's failure to file a timely petition under section 6213(a) or on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. See Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), affd. without published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991). In this regard, we must determine whether respondent mailed the notice of deficiency in question to petitioner's las

Under section 6212, a notice of deficiency is sufficient if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known address by certified or registered mail. Sec. 6212(a) and (b). "A notice of deficiency is valid if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known address even if it is not received by the taxpayer." Williams v. Commissioner, 935 F.2d 1066, 1067 (9th Cir. 1991

The parties do not dispute that the section 6501(a) period of limitations for issuing notices of deficiency to petitioners pursuant to section 6212, as extended by Form 872, expired on June 30, 1995, prior to the issuance of any such deficiency notice to petitioners, unless section 6229(a) and (d) applies to suspend such period.

Section 6213(a) provides in pertinent part: (a) Time For Filing Petition and Restriction On Assessment.--Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed * * *, the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.

Under section 6212, a notice of deficiency is sufficient if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known address by certified or registered mail. Sec. 6212(a) and (b). A notice of deficiency will be deemed valid, whether or not received by the taxpayer, if it was mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. Tadros v. Commissioner, 763 F.2d 89, 91 (2d Cir. 1

Petitioner bases her claim of the invalidity of the deficiency notice on the ground that respondent did not make a determination of her deficiency as required by section 6212, citing Scar v.

Section 6212 pertains to notices of deficiency, as here. Upon examination, the notice of deficiency issued to petitioners specifically provides the primary position determined by respondent, details an alternative position, and calculates a deficiency of $283,078 for petitioners based upon the primary position. Based on the foregoing discussion, we

c, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra. The question presented is whether dismissal of this case should be premised on petitioner's failure to file a timely petition under section 6213(a) or on respondent's failure to issue valid notices of deficiency under section 6212. Petitioner contends that respondent failed to mail the notices of deficiency to his last known address. We disagree. Although the phrase "last known address" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code or in the regulations, we have hel

ondent's position is that petitioners did not file their petition within the time prescribed in section 6213(a) or section 7502. Petitioners object to respondent's motion and contend that respondent failed to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. Petitioners argue that the notice in question was not mailed to their last known address. A hearing was held on respondent's motion. Background Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulated facts and attached e

Section 13127 describes the specific requirements that a determination 5 (...continued) deficiency sent pursuant to section 6212 or before the Tax Court, that the item described in section 1312(3)(B) should be included in the gross income of the taxpayer for the taxable year to which the determination relates.

Section 13127 describes the specific requirements that a determination 5 (...continued) deficiency sent pursuant to section 6212 or before the Tax Court, that the item described in section 1312(3)(B) should be included in the gross income of the taxpayer for the taxable year to which the determination relates.

Court may award a penalty in favor of the United States if any proceeding has been instituted or maintained in this Court for frivolous reasons or for purposes of delay. A valid notice of deficiency was issued by respondent to petitioner pursuant to section 6212. The Court finds no need to address the frivolous and nonsensical allegations and contentions of petitioner. To do so might suggest that petitioner's arguments have some colorable merit, which they do not. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737

case should be dismissed on the ground that the petition was not filed within the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a). Petitioner objects to respondent's motion and contends that respondent failed to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. Petitioner argues that the notice in question was not mailed to his last known address. Respondent argues that the notice was properly mailed to petitioner's last known address and that, in any event, petitioner actually received the not

fact make a determination. Campbell v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 110 (1988). * * * Based upon our review of the notice of deficiency for 1993, we are satisfied that respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's tax liability within the meaning of section 6212. In particular, the notice is addressed to petitioner and Charles Scott, lists Charles Scott's Social Security number, and contains an explanation that respondent disallowed specific amounts of unsubstantiated deductions reported on the S

or lack of jurisdiction. The question presented is whether the dismissal should be premised on petitioner's failure to file a timely petition under section 6213(a) or on respondent's failure to issue valid notices of - NEXTRECORD - deficiency under section 6212. See Shelton v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 193 (1974); O'Brien v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 543, 548 (1974); Heaberlin v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 58, 59 (1960). If we conclude that the petition is untimely, petitioner would be precluded from challen

ule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - the time prescribed in section 6213(a), we understand petitioner to argue that dismissal should be based on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. There being no dispute that we lack jurisdiction over the petition filed herein, we must resolve the parties' dispute respecting the proper ground for dismissal. Background On January 5, 1994, respondent mailed a joint notice of deficienc

itioner failed to file his petition within the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a). Petitioner counters that jurisdiction is lacking as to the taxable year 1990 on the ground that respondent failed to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. There being no dispute that we lack jurisdiction over the taxable year 1990, we must resolve the parties' dispute respecting the proper ground for dismissal. Background On March 3, 1993, respondent mailed a notice to petitioner proposin

Neither section 6212 nor the regulation promulgated thereunder, section 301.6212-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs., defines what constitutes a taxpayer's "last known address". We have defined it as the taxpayer's last permanent address or legal residence known by the Commissioner, or the last known temporary address of a definite duration to which the taxpayer has

d that John and Betty Richardson Stafford (petitioners) failed to file their petition within the time prescribed by section 6213(a), petitioners argue that dismissal should be based on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. There being no dispute that we lack jurisdiction over the petition filed herein, we must resolve the parties' dispute regarding the proper ground for dismissal. See Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), affd. without pu

Insofar as our jurisdiction regarding overpayments is concerned, section 6512(b)(1) provides that if we determine that there is no deficiency and further determine that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of income tax for the same taxable year, we shall have jurisdiction to determine the amount of such an overpayment.

But because a partnership does not have an income tax liability, it cannot have a deficiency in income tax, and the Commissioner cannot issue a Notice of Deficiency to the entity for income tax. Instead, absent a separate set of procedures, the Commissioner would be required to determine deficiencies in income tax partner by partner

§§ 6212 and 6213; Sanders v. Commissioner, 161 T.C. 112, 119–20 (2023); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 & n.4, 138–39 (2022); Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983); see also Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092 (9th Cir. 2020). Generally, a Notice of Deficiency will be deemed valid

no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” And section 6213(a) provides: “Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed .

ourt has jurisdiction to redetermine a taxpayer’s deficiency for a particular year only if the notice of deficiency issued to the taxpayer determined a deficiency for the year and the petition seeks a redetermination for that year. Rule 13(a), (c); §§ 6212, 6213. Under section 6214(a), the Tax Court 116 [*116] has jurisdiction to determine a deficiency greater than that determined by the notice of deficiency provided that the IRS has made a claim for the increased deficiency. Further: Rule 41(b)

See §§ 6212–6214; Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 1, 3–4 (2017); see also Sanders v. Commissioner, 9 [*9] No. 15143-22, 161 T.C. (Nov. 2, 2023); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022). There is no doubt that we have notices of deficiency and timely filed Petitions in these cases. Mr. Tuma contends, however, that the notices of de

See §§ 6212–6214; Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C. (Nov. 2, 2023); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022); Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 1, 3–4 (2017). Petitioner contends that the Notice is invalid because it was issued by the Appeals Office. “Delegation Order 4-8 provides the authority for [Appeals Office] team

See §§ 6212 and 6213; Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 8 (Nov. 2, 2023); Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983). Generally, a notice of deficiency will be deemed valid if it is properly mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address.7 See § 6212; Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 807 (1987). The other jurisdictional r

after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed .

ion was filed on behalf of Gold Crown under an incorrect caption. 8 [*8] No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 14 (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Timbron Int’l Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-31, at *4; see also §§ 6212 and 6213. With respect to corporate taxpayers like petitioner, a proper filing requires taxpayers tendering petitions to the Court to have the capacity to engage in litigation before this Court. See Rule 60(c); see also Brannon’s of Shawnee, In

See §§ 6212–6214; Rule 13(a); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). It is not the existence of a deficiency, but rather the Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency, that provides a predicate for our jurisdiction. Hannan v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 787, 791 (1969). In this case, although respondent has conceded a zero deficiency, his timely iss

popularly known as “intermediate sanctions,” because they provide a remedy short of revocation of exempt status for transactions that constitute inurement. A deficiency in such taxes is collected pursuant to the deficiency procedures provided for in section 6212. 34 [*34] f. Unknown Payment We make no adjustment with respect to the unknown payment. g. Revision to Table 1 To take account of our analysis of the CMAT payments, we revise Table 1 as follows (now Table 1.a.). Table 1.a Payments to CMA

Section 7608, which governs certain criminal enforcement actions, does not limit the Commissioner’s authority to conduct civil examinations under sec- tion 6201, determine deficiencies under section 6212, or collect taxes under section 6301.

Shitrit’s last known address as required by section 6212, and on November 18, 2019, his 2006 income tax assessment was abated.

It provides that, if the taxable event is corrected “during the correction period,” the second-tier tax “shall not be assessed, and if assessed the assessment shall be abated, and if collected shall be credited or refunded as an overpayment.” For this purpose, the “correction period” means, with respect to any taxa

In pertinent part section 6213(a) provides: "Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed * * *, the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination ofthe deficiency." We have long held that the 90-day period prescribed by section 6213(a) sets forth a - 4 - [*4] jurisdictional requirement.

This Court has acknowledged as much, see Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. at 6 (citing Olsen v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 650, 651 (2d Cir. 1937), § a Memorandum Opinion ofthe Board ofTax Appeals), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit requires nothing less, see Bokum v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1136, 1139 (11th Cir. 1993), T.C. Me

Section 6212 authorizes the Secretarywhen he determines that there is a deficiency in respect to certain taxes, including the income tax, to send a notice ofdeficiency to the taxpayer. Upon a petition timely filed, the Tax Court hasjurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount ofthe deficiency. See sec. 6214(a). Because a proceeding before the Tax

Section 3463(a) ofthe Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 1998) requires the Secretary or his delegate to include on any notice ofdeficiency issued under section 6212 the last day on which the taxpayer can file a petition with this Court.

The second-tier tax imposed by section 4958(b) is required to be paid by any disqualified person, as defined in section 4958(f)(1), with respect to that excess benefit transaction.

SHFORD, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction on the ground that respondent has not issued petitioner a statutory notice ofdeficiency for the taxable year 2007, 2008, or 2009, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a), nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's taxable years 2007, SERVED Mar 06 2018 - 2 - [*2] 2008, and 2009 that would allow petitioner to invoke thejurisdiction ofthis C

Under section 6212, ifthe IRS determines that there is a deficiency in Federal income tax (defined in section 6211(a) as the amount by which taxes owed exceeds taxes paid), then the IRS must issue a notice ofdeficiency to the taxpayer, as was done here. The IRS must wait 90 days to assess the tax determined to be owed in that deficiency notice (or 150 da

h he or she must do so); immediately pay some or all ofthe deficiency reflected in the notice (ifit clearly states an amount); or do nothing, after which the Commissioner may assess the deficiency and send the taxpayer a bill for a specific amount.7 Section 6212 does not explicitly privilege any one option over another, though the Commissioner is ofcourse free to include additional information in the notice, such as the year, amount, and reasoning for his determination, to help a taxpayerreach h

ons for the 2012 taxable year. On July 11, 2014, the Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss this case for lack ofjurisdiction insofar as it relates to the 2012 taxable year on the ground that no statutory notice ofdeficiency, as authorized by sec. 6212 and required by sec. 6213(a) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, had been sent to petitioners with respect to the 2012 taxable year, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioners' 2012 taxable year t

existence or amount ofthe liability because petitioner had deliberately refused receipt ofthe notice ofdeficiency. The assessment ofan income tax liability is generally valid ifthe Commissioner properly mails the taxpayer a notice ofdeficiency, see sec. 6212, -20- [*20] but a taxpayermay still challenge the liability at a section 6330 hearing ifhe did not receive the notice, see sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Although section 6330(c)(2)(B) contemplates actual receipt ofa notice ofdeficiency, see, e.g., Ta

Ifit is neither a partnership item nor an affected item, then the TEFRA provisions would not apply, and the usual deficiency procedures ofsection 6212 would apply.5 Under the unique facts 5The regulations define "affected item" to include "any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount provided by subchapter A ofchapter 68 ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to the extent provided in this paragraph (e)." Sec.

year ended December 31, 2000; the Commissioner made adjustments to ¹5Because a notice ofdetermination under secs. 6320/6330 is the jurisdictional equivalent to a notice ofdeficiency, caselaw regarding the validity ofa notice ofdeficiency pursuant to sec. 6212 also informs our holding. See Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000). - 22 - the correct year; and the partnership did not exist until the end ofAugust 2000); Call v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-289, slip op. at 17 n.3 (stating

iled to his last known address, the issue for decision is whetherthe dismissal of this case should be based on petitioner's failure to file a timely petition under section 6213(a) or on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice ofdeficiency under section 6212. Ifjurisdiction is lacking because ofrespondent's failure to issue a valid notice ofdeficiency, we will dismiss on that ground, rather than for lack ofa timely filed petition. Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), aff'd

However, the Commissioner is allowed to directly assess liabilities arising by way of"a mathematical or clerical error appearing on the return" without sending a notice ofdeficiency. Sec. 6213(b)(1). Petitioners claimed a $1,200 stimulus credit on their 2007 return. Despite being informed that their $1,200 credit had been allowed and off

at 767, which provides that "[t]he Secretary * * * shall include on each notice ofdeficiency under section 6212 * * * the date determined * * * as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court." And perhaps the most telling instance: The very provisions estab- lishing the Whistleblower Office are f

at 767, which provides that "[t]he Secretary * * * shall include on each notice ofdeficiency under section 6212 * * * the date determined * * * as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court." And perhaps the most telling instance: The very provisions estab- lishing the Whistleblower Office are f

The petition includes this sentence: "The IRS has not disclosed what 'Subtitle A - Income Tax' the Notice ofDeficiency pertains to in accord [sic] § 6211 and § 6212." (This statement appears to reflect Mr.

Section 7459(c) provides that "ifthe Tax Court dismisses a proceeding for lack ofjurisdiction, an order to that effect shall be entered in the records ofthe Tax Court, and the decision ofthe Tax Court shall be held to be rendered upon the date ofsuch entry." "[A]n order ofdismissal for lack ofjurisdiction is treated as 2Unless

Section 6213(a) requires that a petition be filed within 90 days "after the notice ofdeficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed." Petitioner did not file any documentthat the Court could construe as a petition within 90 days after the notice ofdeficiency for 2010 was mailed.

Section 7459(c) provides that "ifthe Tax Court dismisses a proceeding for lack ofjurisdiction, an order to that effect shall be entered in the records ofthe Tax Court, and the decision ofthe Tax Court shall be held to be rendered upon the date ofsuch entry." "[A]n order ofdismissal for lack ofjurisdiction is treated as 2Unless

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: Pursuantto section 6212,¹ the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") issued petitioners Jackie and Lolita Robinson a statutorynotice of ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section reference to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C., "the Code"), as in effect for the tax years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

Section 6013(b)(2)(B) specificallybars taxpayers from electing to file ajoint return after filing a separate return "afterthere has been mailed to either spouse, with respect to such taxable year, a notice ofdeficiency under section 6212, ifthe spouse, as to such notice, files a petition with the Tax Court within the time prescribed in section 6213".

all items ofStone Canyon would be taken into account by the partners ofStone Canyon in accordance with their distributive shares, see secs. - 96 - 701-704, and would be properly determinable on a partner-by-partnerbasis at the individual level, sm sec. 6212. And that is exactly how the IRS audited and adjusted Stone Canyon's items in this case. I would hold that this Courthas jurisdiction over all ofthe items in the notice ofdeficiency through the application ofsection 6231(g)(2). III. Conclusi

Section 6211 defines a "deficiency," - 7 - and section 6212 authorizes the IRS to send a "notice ofdeficiency" ifit deter- mines a deficiency with respect to a taxpayer's tax.

993. Shortly after the petitions were filed, the parties each moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners alleged that the notices of deficiency were invalid because they had not been sent to petitioners’ last known address as required by section 6212. Respondent alleged that the notices of deficiency had been sent to petitioners’ last known address, and were valid, but that the petitions had not been filed within the 90-day period following the dates on which the notices of deficienc

Section 6211 defines a “deficiency,” and section 6212 authorizes the IRS to send a “notice of deficiency” if it determines a deficiency with respect to a taxpayer’s tax.

ead, all items of Stone Canyon would be taken into account by the partners of Stone Canyon in accordance with their distributive shares, see secs. 701-704, and would be properly determinable on a partner-by-partner basis at the individual level, see sec. 6212. And that is exactly how the IRS audited and adjusted Stone Canyon’s items in this case. I would hold that this Court has jurisdiction over all of the items in the notice of deficiency through the application of section 6231(g)(2). III. Con

Section 7522(a) provides that a notice ofdeficiency "shall describe the basis for, and identify the amounts (ifany) of, the tax due, interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties included in such notice." It further - 8 - [*8] provides that "[a]n inadequate description under the preceding sentenc

at all relevant times. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure. - 3 - [*3] Origin ofPetitioner's Liability Petitioner did not file an income tax return for 2003. Respondent sent petitioner a notice ofdeficiency, see sec. 6212, and petitioner filed a petition for redetermination with this Court, see sec. 6213(a), at docket No. 11519-05. In March 2008 petitioner's case at docket No. 11519-05 was tried to the Court in Columbia, South Carolina. Thereafter, the Court

ion was filed. Petitioner contends that the notice ofdeficiency is invalid for failing to include the address and telephone number ofthe local office ofthe National Taxpayer Advocate and that inclusion ofa Web page link is inadequate compliance with I.R.C. sec. 6212. Held: The notice was not invalid. The motion to dismiss will be granted. John C. Hom (an officer), for petitioner. Sarah E. Sexton, for respondent. SERVED MAY - 7 2013 - 2 - OPINION COHEN, Judge: This case is before the Court on res

Introduction In pertinent part, section 6213(a) provides: "Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed * * * , the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination ofthe deficiency." The conclusion ofthe first dissenting opinion, see Halpern op.

ns) apply in the same manner as ifthe notice ofdetermination were a notice ofdeficiency. Under section ò213(a), a taxpayer may file a petition for redetermination ofa deficiency within 90 days after the mailing ofa notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212. Under section 6212(b), in the absence of notice to the Secretary ofa notice offiduciary relationship, the Secretary is authorized to issue a notice ofdeficiency to a corporate taxpayer at its last known - 7 - [*7] address even ifthe cor

Section 6212 authorizes the Commissioner to send a notice ofdeficiency alerting a taxpayerthat the Commissionerbelieves he owes more than he has reported. A taxpayer has 90 days from the date that notice was mailed to file a petition with this Court. Sec. 6213(a). Subject to exceptions not relevant here, the Commissioner may not assess, levy, or ta

Introduction In pertinent part, section 6213(a) provides: “Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed * * *, the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.” The conclusion of the first dissenting opinion, see Halpern op.

at 767, and is stated as follows: “The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s delegate shall include on each notice of deficiency under section 6212 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 the date determined by such Secretary (or delegate) as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court.” Here, as in Smith, section 6212 does not specify that a notice sent without the specified information is invalid.

Respondent notes that "Family is itselfsubject to the TEFRA partnership rules requiring the issuance ofa notice offinal partnership administrative adjustment to Family's partners under section 6223(f) [sic] rather than a notice of deficiencyunder section 6212." Mdtiori to stay 10.

A deficiency notice under IRC § 6212 is not applicable in this situation and the taxpayerreceived the Notice ofTax Due, Form 3552.

e ofdeficiency was mailed, he has failed to carry his burden ofproving that the notice was properly mailed. Accordingly, we lackjurisdiction because the record does not establish that a notice ofdeficiency was mailed to petitioner in accordance with section 6212. Consequently, we will dismiss the instant case for lack ofjurisdiction. In reaching these holdings, we have considered all the parties' arguments, and, to the extent not addressed herein, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or w

ondeductibility"),aff'd, 832 F.2d 403 (7th Cir. 1987). 3As noted previously, the Commissioner is authorized and directed by sec. 6020(b)(1) in situations like the one present to file a substitute for the taxpayer's Federal income tax return, and by sec. 6212 to issue a notice ofdeficiency. See also Hartman v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 542, 546 (1975) ("Obviously, the fact that petitioner failed to file a return will not insulate him from a determination by the Commissionerthat a tax is due and owing

Although section 6330(c) (2) (B) contemplates actual receipt of a notice of deficiency by the taxpayer, see, e.g., Tatum v. Commissioner, T.'C. Memo. 2003-115, the taxpayer may not avoid actual receipt by.deliberately refusing delivery, Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610-611. A taxpayer who refuses delivery of a notice of deficiency is d

The "applicable date" referred to in the above subparagraph is triggered by the mailing ofeither a "letter ofproposed deficiency" or a "deficiency notice under section 6212".

An evidentiary hearing was conducted on respondent's motion in Houston, Texas, on November 18, 2010. Background Petitioners moved several times shortly before and shortly after the notice was issued. The notice is addressed to petitioners at 22531 Vista Valley Drive, Katy, TX 77450 (the Vista Valley address) but at the time the notice wa

142 (1940), the Board of Tax Appeals held that there was no suspension of the period of limitations upon assessment when the IRS sent a notice that was not proper under former section 272, the predecessor of section 6212, that had prompted the taxpayer to file a petition in a prior case.

Commissioner, supra at 331 ("The jurisdiction of this Court is strictly limited under section 6213(a) to persons who file a petition with this Court * * * after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 has been mailed to that person .") ; Wheeler v .

Whether Petitioner May Challenge the.Underlying Liability Section 6212 (a) and (b) (1) provides that a valid notice of deficiency has.been issued if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known address.

492,; 498 (2000) (a - '10 - determination notice is the .jurisdictional equivalent of, a deficiency notice pursuant to :section 6212 ) Respondent's letter was issued in.accordance .with the,,award determination procedures .

Section 6212 authorizes the mailing of a notice of deficiency and contains no restrictions prohibiting the inclusion of mathematical or clerical adjustments . Section 6213 gives the Tax Court jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency when a petition is filed timely in response to a notice of deficiency . Such jurisdiction does not depend on whether

- 17 - deficiency a tributable to any error or delay by an officer or employee of he IRS in performing a ministerial or managerial act.; 8 or- (2) .any payment of any tax described in section 6212(a ) to the exten that any error or delay in such.

it h his or her spouse for such taxable year . Section 6013(b)(2) specifies that the election under section 6013(b)(1) may not be made "after there has been mailed to eithe r spouse, with respect to such taxable year, a notice of . deficiency under section 6212" . Respondent prepared a .substitute for return for petitioner for 2004 under section 6020(b) in; which respondent determined petitioner's filing status to be married filing separately . Respondent then mailed a notice of deficiency t o p

-Time for Filing Petition and Restriction on Assessment.--Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day), the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.

section 6212, it notified Petitioner of the same . Respondent then issued a Notice. of Deficiency . From that point, petitioner's argument is that the section 6020 provisions do not apply to his income as he characterizes it and that procedures set out in the Internal Revenue Manual were not followed . He then argues that because the notices of def

Section 6212 authorizes the mailing of a notice of deficiency and contains no restrictions prohibiting the inclusion of mathematical or clerical adjustments. Section 6213 gives the Tax Court jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency when a petition is filed timely in response to a notice of deficiency. Such jurisdiction does not depend on whether th

The notice of deficiency was sent to petitioner under section 6212, and the petition was filed under section 6213 .

made "after there has been mailed to either spouse, with respec t to such taxable year, a notice of deficiency under section 6212 , if the spouse, as to such notice, files a petition with the Ta x Court within the time prescribed by section 6213" .

Furthermore, section 6013(b)(2)(B) bars an election to file an amended joint return under section 6013(b)(1) "after there has been mailed to either spouse, with respect to such taxable year, a notice of deficiency under section 6212, if the spouse, as to such notice, files a petition with the Tax Court within the time prescribed in section 6213" .

Under section 6212 .(b)(1), a notice of deficiency mailed to a taxpayer's last known address is valid even if it is never received . Wiley v . United States , 20 F .3d 222, 224 (6th Cir . 1994) ; Frieling v . Commissioner, 81 T .C. 42, 52 (1983) . Section 301 .6212-2(a), Proced . & Admin . Regs ., defines a taxpayer's last known address as "the address t

resulting in petitioner's . accurate reference to tax .years 1993 and 19.94 in his hearing request) . 2 . Underlying Tax Liability . The taxes at issue are employment taxes, for which respondent-was not required to issue a notice of deficiency under section 6212 . 6 '( . . .continued) complete copy of the Mar . 6, 2006, final notice of intent to levy . We note that petitioner submitted a copy of only the first page of the notice of determination when he filed his petition and amended petition wi

ice of deficiency was properly mailed to a taxpayer . Coleman v . Commissioner, 94 T .C . 82, 90I-91 (1990) . When a Letter 1153 -is :mailed, the Commissioner must follow the same mailing' procedures that are provided for notice's of deficiency in section 6212,(b) . Sec . 6672(b)(1) . It follows that the same evidence that establishes that the Commissionerlailed a notice of deficiency to a taxpayer's last known address should be sufficient to establish that the Commissioner properly senta Letter

More fundamentally, petitioners' position is contradicted by a consistent line of cases in this Court and the Courts of, Appeals holding that defects in the mailing of a notice of deficiency under section 6212 (a) are inconsequential where the taxpayer receives actual notice in time.to file a petition for redetermination in the Tax Court.

Respondent suggests that even without proof of mailing in accordance with section 6212, the notice of deficiency is valid if it is actually received by the taxpayer or his duly authorized attorney-in-fact in time to petition this Court for review.

st on-- (A) any deficiency attributable in whole or in part to any error or delay by an officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service (acting in his official capacity) in performing a ministerial act, or (B) any payment of any tax described in section 6212 (a) to the extent that any error or delay in such payment is attributable to such an officer or employee being erroneous or dilatory in performing.

RRA section 3463(a) provides as follows: (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s delegate shall include on each notice of deficiency under section 6212 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 the date determined by such Secretary (or delegate) as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court.

the case of the taxes imposed by subtitle A , (2) $50,000, in the case of the tax imposed by chapter 11 , (3) $50,000 for any one calendar year, in the case of the tax imposed by chapter 12, o r (4) $50,000 for any 1 taxable period (or, if there is no taxable period, taxable event) in the case of any tax imposed by subtitle D which is described in section 6212(a ) (relating to a notice of deficiency) [Emphasis added .

Taxpayers are allowed an abatement of assessed interest on a payment of tax described in section 6212 to the extent certain types of errors or delays in payment are attributable to an officer or employee of the IRS .

Commissioner, supra at 523 (the procedural rules do not curtail the power conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate by section 6212 to issue a notice of deficiency if he determines that there is a deficiency in the tax shown on the taxpayer's return) ; Finley v .

- 16 - The purpose of the mailing under section 6212 is to provide the taxpayer with notice that a deficiency has been determined against him or her, and to provide the taxpayer with an opportunity to petition this Court to challenge the Commissioner’s determination.13 Id.

The election provided for in paragraph (1) may not be made-- * * * * * * * - 6 - (B) after there has been mailed to either spouse, with respect to such taxable year, a notice of deficiency under section 6212, if the spouse, as to such notice, files a petition with the Tax Court within the time prescribed in section 6213; In the present case, petitioner received the notice of deficiency issued by respondent, and he filed a timely petition with this Court.

Thus, the evidence shows that the notice of deficiency was sent in a manner in compliance with, and valid under, section 6212 and corresponding regulations, requiring that a notice of deficiency be sent to a taxpayer’s last known address.

Under section 6212, in general, the Commissioner is entitled to treat the address on a taxpayer’s most recent tax return as the taxpayer’s last known address, unless the taxpayer has given “‘clear and concise notification of a different address.’” Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004) (quoting Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 260 n.4 (2001)),

Under section 6212, in general, the Commissioner is entitled to treat the address on a taxpayer’s most recent tax return as the taxpayer’s last known address, unless the taxpayer has given “clear and concise notification of a different address.” Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), affd. 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005). - 7 - Petitioners’ Forms 4340

Section 6213(a) generally restricts when the Commissioner may assess a deficiency, make a levy determination, and begin or prosecute a collection action in a court proceeding. The Commissioner is generally prohibited from taking these actions until: (1) The notice of deficiency has been mailed to the taxpayer; (2) the 90- day period in w

Under section 6212, in general, the Commissioner is entitled to treat the address on a taxpayer’s most recent tax return as the taxpayer’s last known address, unless the taxpayer has given “clear and concise notification of a different address.” Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), affd. 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005). - 7 - Petitioners’ Forms 4340

known address for purposes of section 6015(e)(1)(A)(ii) or otherwise affect the mailing requirements of that section . See Houghton v . Commissioner, 48 T .C 656, 661 (1967) (similarly construing mailing requirements for notices of deficiency under section 6212) . Respondent's alleged failure to send a copy of the Final Notice to petitioner's attorney did not extend the 90-day filing period . See id. ; Allen v . Commissioner, 29 T .C . 113, 117 (1957) . Petitioner acknowledges that she received

In support of the motion, respondent argues that no statutory notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, has been sent to petitioners with respect to 2002 (the taxable year in question), nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to 2002 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court.

February 9, 2004, petitioner’s son told respondent’s counsel that 2 On Mar. 22, 2001, an amendment to petition was filed in which petitioner alleged that respondent was barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and waiver, and by sec. 6212 from proceeding with this case. On May 1, 2001, an answer to amended petition was filed in which respondent denied the allegations in the amendment to petition. -9- petitioner did not have a guardian or anyone with power of attorney or any

In the context of,those·taxes, the term (continued. . . ) - 42 - respondent argue that petitioners otherwise had an opportunity to dispute the unpaid tax within the meaning of section 6330(c) (2) (B).6 Rather, respondent's contention that petitioners' obligation to pay the unpaid tax is not properly at issue is based on his position t

Under section 6212, in general, the Commissioner is entitled to treat the address on a taxpayer’s most recent tax return as the taxpayer’s last known address, unless the taxpayer has given “clear and concise notification of a different address.” Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 260 n.4 (2001); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988); sec.

Section 6212, which requires the Secretary to issue notices of deficiency, does not require that respondent provide petitioner a copy of the delegation order. See Nestor v. Commissioner, supra at 166. Therefore, we conclude that petitioner did receive a valid notice of deficiency for 1998. Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that a taxpayer may challeng

Petitioners further contend that the term “notice of deficiency’ in section 7430(c)(7) should not be given the same meaning it has under section 6212, and that for purposes of section 7430(c)(7)(B)(ii) it is inconsequential that the reviewer’s proposal was neither issued nor sent to them.

1995) - 8 - (holding that section 6212 does not require that a notice of deficiency be signed).

eror’s income tax deficiency, the Commissioner must use the same deficiency procedures that would apply in assessing and collecting the deficiency from the transferor. Those deficiency procedures include mailing a notice of deficiency as required by sec. 6212. See Dillman v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 797, 800 (1975). Sec. 6901(f) explicitly equates the mailing of the requisite notice of transferee liability with the mailing of a notice of deficiency, by referring to the “mailing to the transferee *

Please note that Section 6212 states that “If the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax ...

Please note that Section 6212 states that “If the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax...he is authorized to send notice of such deficiency etc., etc., etc.” However, the “no- tice” I received was not sent by the Secretary, but by Dennis L.

Please note that Section 6212 states that “If the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax ...

1) For one thing, Section 6212 states that “If the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax...

section 6212 prior to making its assessment for that year. [Id.; fn. ref. omitted.] On April 26, 1993, respondent mailed notice and demand to petitioner at the Kentucky address. It is undisputed that this notice and demand was timely if mailed to petitioner’s last known address. The Appeals Office relied upon and adopted the District Court’s reason

(2) Code section 6212 states “The Secretary of Treasury” determines a deficiency & the “Secretary” or his delegate shall notify taxpayer.

eror’s income tax deficiency, the Commissioner must use the same deficiency procedures that would apply in assessing and collecting the deficiency from the transferor. Those deficiency procedures include mailing a notice of deficiency as required by sec. 6212. See Dillman v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 797, 800 (1975). Sec. 6901(f) explicitly equates the mailing of the requisite notice of transferee liability with the mailing of a notice of deficiency, by referring to the “mailing to the transferee *

On April 1, 2002, the Court received and filed a joint 2 Sec. 3463 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, 767, directs the Secretary to include on each notice of deficiency issued under sec. 6212 the date of the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court. See Rochelle v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 356, 359 (2001), affd. 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002). - 4 - petition for redetermination challenging the above-desc

t such return was filed on or after the date prescribed).” Except in certain specified circumstances not relevant to the case at hand, the Commissioner must, before assessing a deficiency, mail the taxpayer a notice of deficiency in accordance with section 6212. Sec. 6213(a). Section 6503(a)(1) provides: The running of the period of limitations provided in section 6501 * * * on the making of assessments * * * in respect of any deficiency * * * shall * * * be suspended for the period during which

(5) Taxable period.--The term “taxable period” means, with respect to any excess benefit transaction, the period beginning with the date on which the transaction occurs and ending on the earliest of-- (A) the date of mailing a notice of deficiency under section 6212 with respect to the tax imposed by subsection (a)(1), or - 72 - (B) the date on which the tax imposed by subsection (a)(1) is assessed.

(5) Taxable period.--The term “taxable period” means, with respect to any excess benefit transaction, the period beginning with the date on which the transaction occurs and ending on the earliest of-- (A) the date of mailing a notice of deficiency under section 6212 with respect to the tax imposed by subsection (a)(1), or - 72 - (B) the date on which the tax imposed by subsection (a)(1) is assessed.

In any case where such amount is paid after the mailing of a notice of deficiency under section 6212, such payment shall not deprive the Tax Court of jurisdiction over such deficiency determined under section 6211 without regard to such (continued...) - 13 - payments made to this Court after the notice of deficiency will not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to redetermine taxpayers’ deficiencies.

(5) Taxable period.--The term “taxable period” means, with respect to any excess benefit transaction, the period beginning with the date on which the transaction occurs and ending on the earliest of-- (A) the date of mailing a notice of deficiency under section 6212 with respect to the tax imposed by subsection (a)(1), or - 72 - (B) the date on which the tax imposed by subsection (a)(1) is assessed.

(5) Taxable period.--The term “taxable period” means, with respect to any excess benefit transaction, the period beginning with the date on which the transaction occurs and ending on the earliest of-- (A) the date of mailing a notice of deficiency under section 6212 with respect to the tax imposed by subsection (a)(1), or - 72 - (B) the date on which the tax imposed by subsection (a)(1) is assessed.

(5) Taxable period.--The term “taxable period” means, with respect to any excess benefit transaction, the period beginning with the date on which the transaction occurs and ending on the earliest of-- (A) the date of mailing a notice of deficiency under section 6212 with respect to the tax imposed by subsection (a)(1), or - 72 - (B) the date on which the tax imposed by subsection (a)(1) is assessed.

t such return was filed on or after the date prescribed).” Except in certain specified circumstances not relevant to the case at hand, the Commissioner must, before assessing a deficiency, mail the taxpayer a notice of deficiency in accordance with section 6212. Sec. 6213(a). Section 6503(a)(1) provides: The running of the period of limitations provided in section 6501 * * * on the making of assessments * * * in respect of any deficiency * * * shall * * * be suspended for the period during which

Section 6212 authorizes the Commissioner to determine a tax deficiency. Petitioners argue that any failure to make such a determination results in a lack of our subject-matter 6 If allowable, the expenses would have been deductible from AGI and subject to sec. 67 and other limitations. - 11 - jurisdiction over the issue of whether the expenses cla

§6212 (“[i]f the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency * * * he is authorized to send such - 16 - deficiency to the taxpayer by certified mail or registered mail”); see also Commissioner v. Oswego Falls Corp., 71 F.2d 673, 677 (2d Cir. 1934) (notice of deficiency need not be signed). Moreover, in Scar v. Commissioner, we held that “no pa

Section 6013(b)(2)(B) provides that a joint return may not be filed after a separate return has been filed and “after there has been mailed to either spouse, with respect to such taxable year, a notice of deficiency under section 6212, if the spouse, as to such notice, files a petition with the Tax Court within the time prescribed in section 6213”.

ce of deficiency was not sufficient because it failed to identify the Code sections under which respondent’s determination was made. Section 7522 sets forth requirements as to the contents of notices, including a statutory notice of deficiency under section 6212. Section 7522(a) provides that the notice “shall describe the basis for, and identify the amounts (if any) of, the tax due, interest, - 4 - additional amounts, additions to tax, and assessable penalties included in such notice. An inadeq

. Commissioner, 114 T.C. , ___ (2000) (slip op. at 13); Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra at 790-791. Prior to TEFRA, items corresponding to those which TEFRA defines as partnership and affected items were all litigated in a deficiency proceeding under section 6212. See Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra at 787. In this case, respondent did not issue a FPAA for the year at issue in this case; rather respondent issued a notice of deficiency under section 6212. The parties agree that the items set forth

685, 767 provides: The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s delegate shall include on each notice of deficiency under section 6212 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 the date determined by such Secretary (or delegate) as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court.

nal Revenue Service’s Motion to Dismiss, filed February 18, 2000, petitioner objects to respondent’s motion upon the ground that the notice of deficiency upon which this case is based was not mailed to petitioner’s last known address as required by section 6212. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on respondent’s motion in San Francisco, California, on May 9, 2000. The issue for decision is whether the notice of deficiency upon which this case is based was sent to petitioner at his last known a

685, 767 provides: The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s delegate shall include on each notice of deficiency under section 6212 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 the date determined by such Secretary (or delegate) as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court.

Discussion The opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is that in this case respondent did not satisfy the requirements of section 6212 for mailing of a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer's last known address by certified or registered mail.

ssued to both Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler. In general, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited by section 6213(a) to proceedings commenced by taxpayers who timely file a petition in response to a notice of deficiency issued to them under the authority of section 6212. See Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988); Guarino v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 329, 331 (1976); see also Rule 13. Accordingly, when a notice of deficiency is issued to only one spou

spect to any prohibited transaction, the period beginning with the date on which the prohibited transaction occurs and ending on the earliest of—- (A) the date of mailing a notice of deficiency with respect to the tax imposed by subsection (a) under section 6212, (B) the date on which the tax imposed by subsection (a) is assessed, or (C) the date on which correction of the prohibited transaction is completed.

The parties have stipulated, and we find as a fact, that for purposes of section 6212, petitioners' last known address as of October 2, 1996, was P.O.

Neither section 6212 nor the regulation promulgated thereunder, section 301.6212-1, Proced.

According to petitioners, any of these other addresses should be considered their last known address - 7 - within the meaning of section 6212, and respondent's failure to mail the notice of deficiency to any of these other addresses renders the notice invalid.

Time for Filing Petition and Restriction on Assessment.--Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day), the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.

Time For Filing Petition and Restriction on Assessment.--Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed * * *, the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.

that Barry and Debra Bulakites (petitioners) failed to file their petition within the time prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502, petitioners argue that dismissal should be based on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. Because there is no dispute that we lack jurisdiction over the petition filed herein, we must resolve the parties' dispute regarding the proper ground for dismissal. See Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), affd. withou

hat the petition was not filed within the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a). Petitioner moved for dismissal on the grounds that the notices of deficiency are invalid because they were not mailed to her last known address as required under section 6212. Petitioner also filed a motion to have the burden of proof shifted to respondent. A hearing was held on these motions in Portland, Oregon. Petitioner's Motion to Shift the Burden of Proof was denied at the hearing. Some of the facts have

Likewise for the year 1993, respondent disallowed $16,439 of petitioner's business expenses under Schedule C, whereas the record herein shows that petitioner actually claimed only $16,119. We will take the figures as - 5 - reported by petitioner's returns, which are stipulated in evidence herein. 2. With respect to the itemized deductio

s "wrongfully and fraudulently issued". Relying on Scar v. Commissioner, supra, petitioners maintain that the Court should conclude that the notice of deficiency is invalid on the ground that respondent did not make a determination as required under section 6212. Respondent filed an objection to petitioners' motion. Relying on Kantor v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 1514, 1521-1522 (9th 10 We observe that Mr. Jones' original theory that petitioners received a more favorable settlement than the standard

ented delivery of the notice of deficiency and where the taxpayer was not made aware that a notice of deficiency had been issued in time to file a timely petition, courts have held that the notice of deficiency was invalid for failure to comply with section 6212. E.g., Mulvania v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-98; Heaberlin v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 58 (1960); Council v. Burke, 713 F. Supp. 181 (M.D.N.C. 1988). In Heaberlin v. Commissioner, supra, the notice o

For purposes of this subsection-- (A) In general.--The applicable date is the 30th day after the earlier of-- (i) the date on which the 1st letter of proposed deficiency which allows the taxpayer an opportunity for administrative review in the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals is sent, or (ii) the date on which the deficiency notice under section 6212 is sent.

dismissed on the ground that the petition was not filed within the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a), while petitioner contends that dismissal should be based on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency as required under section 6212. There being no dispute that we lack jurisdiction over the petition filed herein, we must resolve the parties' dispute respecting the proper ground for dismissal. Background On or about December 23, 1992, petitioner filed a joint Federal

5 Rule 23(a)(1) provides that "The name of an estate or trust or other person for whom a fiduciary acts shall precede the fiduciary's name and title, as for example 'Estate of Mary Doe, (continued...) - 51 - Turner v.

Neither section 6212 nor the regulation promulgated thereunder, section 301.6212-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs., defines what constitutes a taxpayer's "last known address". We have defined it as the taxpayer's last permanent address or legal residence known by the Commissioner, or the last known temporary address of a definite duration to which the taxpayer has

OPINION Petitioner contends that since the notice of deficiency dated January 7, 1994, was mailed to 340 Centinela #A, rather than to 3402 Centinela Avenue, the jurisdictional requirements of section 6212 have not been met.

must be dismissed on the ground that petitioner failed to file his petition within the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a), petitioner argues that dismissal should be based on respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. There being no question that we lack jurisdiction over the petition filed herein, we must resolve the parties' dispute respecting the proper ground for dismissal. Because we lack jurisdiction in this case, it follows, as discussed in gr

Section 6212, in pertinent part, provides that if the Commissioner "mailed to the taxpayer a notice of deficiency as provided in subsection (a), and the taxpayer files a petition with the Tax Court * * * the * * * [Commissioner] shall have no right to determine any additional deficiency * * * of chapter 43 tax for the same taxable year". We have in

Limitations for making of election.--The election provided for in paragraph (1) may not be made-- * * * (C) after there has been mailed to either spouse, with respect to such taxable year, a notice of deficiency under section 6212, if the spouse, as to such notice, files a petition with the Tax Court within the time prescribed in section 6213; * * * - 11 - Rather it appears that petitioner attempted to provide support for his position that he had previously filed his 1991 return.

at sec. 7482(b)(1)(A) uses the term “petitioner” rather than “taxpayer” is not particularly relevant to our inquiry. Various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code refer to “the taxpayer” whether in the context of deficiency cases in the Tax Court (sec. 6212 — notice of deficiency; sec. 6213 — restrictions applicable to deficiencies; petition to Tax Court) or in the context of tax refund cases in the U.S. District Courts (sec. 7422 — civil actions for refund). However, when it comes to venue pr

eriods after the 30th day after the earlier of (1) the date of mailing of the first letter of proposed deficiency which allows the taxpayer the opportunity for the IRS Appeals Office review, or (2) the date of mailing of a notice of deficiency under section 6212. Petitioners have attempted to place in dispute their liability for interest under section 6621(c) in an effort to have the Court determine the correct “applicable date” for computing such interest. Petitioners allege that they were not

ot provide a basis for rejecting a deficiency notice because of a violation of its provisions. Collins v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 693, 700-701 (1974).4 Petitioner makes no argument that the deficiency notice does not otherwise meet the requirements of section 6212. See Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025- 1027 (1988). In view of the foregoing, the validity of the deficiency notice is not open to challenge, and we need not explore whether we would have jurisdiction to cancel the notice if th

tter of proposed deficiency (generally the 30-day letter) that allows the taxpayer an opportunity for administrative review in the IRS Appeals Office (or, if no letter of proposed deficiency is sent, the date of the notice of deficiency described in section 6212 of the Code), or (2) the date by which the relevant evidence under the control of the taxpayer, as well as relevant legal arguments, with respect to such action have been presented by the taxpayer to IRS examination or Service Center per

Neither section 6212 nor the regulation promulgated thereunder, section 301.6212-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs., defines what constitutes a taxpayer's "last known address". We have defined it as the taxpayer's last permanent address or legal residence known by the Commissioner, or the last known temporary address of a definite duration to which the taxpayer has