§6213 — Restrictions applicable to deficiencies; petition to Tax Court

Accordingly, we overrule petitioner's objection to the admission of Exhibit BB.

Unlike section 6213, at issue Commissioner, 142 S.

We held that section 6038 penalties are not assessable (absent judgment) because Congress, unlike for myriad other penalties in the Code, did not explicitly grant the Commissioner assessment authority for those penalties. See Farhy, 160 T.C., slip op. at 7–8. Our Court’s jurisdiction under section 6213(a) is predicated on the issuance and mailing of a notice of deficiency as outlined in section 6212(a).

ercut the theory and reasoning underlying” those precedents, so that “[t]he cases are now clearly irreconcilable”, and that “efficient and harmonious judicial administration here would seem to require this Court to review the Supreme Court’s Boechler opinion and issue a new precedent on the section 6213(a) filing deadline.” We now undertake such a review, and we conclude that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Boechler does not apply to the 90-day deadline of section 6213(a).

We there distinguished Vetrano v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 272, 280 (2001), where the "innocent spouse" claim had been raised as an affirmative defense in a deficiency proceeding commenced under section 6213.

272 (2001), is distinguished because the petition in that case invoked the Court's jurisdiction under I.R.C. sec. 6213 to redetermine a deficiency and required that the Court enter a decision.

6213(b)(2)(A). The ability to cure before assessment ofsome assessable penalties is additional evidence ofa system intended to provide taxpayers meaningful opportunities to remedy the problem before assessment. See, e.g., sec. 6702 (frivolous return penalty does not apply iftaxpayerwithdraws frivolous submission within 30 days ofreceiving notice from the IRS).

Furthermore, an offset under section 6402(a) is distinguishable from, and does - 5 - not constitute, a levy.

-Moreover, unlike the other summary assessments the IRS may make under section 6213(b), the summary assessment under subsection (b)-(3)'to recapture a tentative refund is not subject to subsection (b)(2), which (outside the tentative refund context) provides a routine under which the IRS must abate the assessment upon a taxpayer's request but then may issue a notice of deficiency,

The Court is reviewing this case under section 6213, which confers jurisdiction to redetermine deficiencies in income taxes . 'To the extent that petitioner may be characterized as asking for relief from liability, sec . 6015 is inapplicable .

3 In Grigoraci I, unlike the instant case, the deficiency determined by respondent was also partly attributable to self- employment tax on wages that the S corporation had reported paying to Mr. Grigoraci. In Grigoraci I, this Court held that this discrete portion of the deficiency was not attributable to an “affected item” and that consequently this Court had jurisdiction to review it pursuant to sec. 6213.

Determinations and Redeterminations by This Court Section 6015(e)(1)(A), which authorizes this Court to determine the appropriate relief available under section 6015, is similar to our deficiency jurisdiction in section 6213, which provides that taxpayers who receive a notice of deficiency may petition this Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. Sec. 6213(a). It is well established that the APA does not apply to deficiency cases in this Court; that is, cases arising under sections 6213 o

-3- The parties agree that the Court may dismiss this case pursuant to petitioners’ request.3 We distinguish this dismissal from our jurisprudence that holds that taxpayers may not withdraw a petition under section 6213 to redetermine a deficiency.

Unlike the taxpayer in Smith, petitioner did not file his petition within the 90-day period prescribed by section 6213(a).

Section 6404(g) does not bar assessment, unlike section 6213.

We need not decide whether this exception to the 90-day deadline is applicable to section 7436.

We disagree with respondent.

Jurisdictional context In determining whether the 90-day rule is jurisdictional, we are not confined to the first sentence of section 6213(a).

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

By checking the requisite boxes on her Petition, petitioner asserts two different bases for our jurisdiction: (1) deficiency jurisdiction pursuant to section 6213 arising from a valid Notice of Deficiency and (2) jurisdiction to review a determination of employment status pursuant to section 7436.2 I.

519, 522–23 (1974) (holding section 7459(d) applies in cases filed pursuant to section 6213 and mandates an entry of decision in the Commissioner’s favor).

Third, the claim can be asserted by a spouse as an affirmative defense in a proceeding to redetermine a deficiency pursuant to section 6213(a).

We explained “that in defi- ciency cases brought pursuant to section 6213 a taxpayer may not with- draw a petition in order to avoid a decision.” Davidson v.

Most cases before this Court involve petitions to redetermine deficiencies pursuant to section 6213.

Pursuant to section 6213(a), a taxpayer has (as relevant here) a 90-day period after the notice ofdeficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court for redetermination ofthe deficiency.

Pursuant to section 6213(a), a taxpayer has (as relevant here) a 90-day period after the notice ofdeficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court for redetermination ofthe deficiency.

Regs., and finding that (1) "pursuant to section 6213(a) a transferee may petition our Court for a redetermination ofhis transferee liability only after a notice oftransferee liability authorized by section 6901 has been determinated and is issued under the provisions ofsection 6212" and (2) "[a]s in the case ofa notice ofdeficiency, the requisite con

With respect to claims for relieffromjoint and several liability, the Court has threejurisdictional bases for reviewing a claim: (1) as an affirmative defense in a deficiency redetermination proceeding pursuant to section 6213(a); (2) as a stand-alone petition pursuant to section 6015(e) where the Commissioner has issued a final determination denying the electing spouse's claim for reliefor the Commissioner has failed to rule on the claim within six months ofits filing; and (3) in the context of

In SECC Corp., the Court held that this principle ofsec. 6213(a) would not cause the Court to lackjurisdiction ifa petition is filed more than 90 days after a determination where the Commissioner did not exercise his right under sec. 7436(b)(2) to trigger the 90-day limitation period by sending notice by certified or registered mail. Id. In other words, the Court determined that sec. 7436(b)(2)--the specific provision--trumps sec. 7436(d)(1)--the broad provision. This is consistent with the Cour

Pursuant to section 6213(a), a taxpayer has 90 days after the notice ofdeficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court for redetermination ofthe deficiency.

After stipulations by the parties, the issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioners substantiated their entitlementto business expense deductions beyond those that respondent allowed (with a few exceptions, we hold that they did not); (2) whetherpetitioners failed to include certain amounts in gross income that should have been reported on their return (we hold that they did to the extent described below); (3) whether certain receipts ofMr.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined a deficiency of$4,500 in the 2009 Federal income tax ofpetitioner, Sean Richards, SERVED JUL 2 4 2013 - 2 - [*2] pursuant to section 6213.1 The matter is currently before the Court on a motion for summaryjudgment filed pursuant to Rule 121 by respondent, the Commissioner ofthe IRS.

This case arises from the Dunfords' timely petition pursuant to section 6213 for redetermination ofthe tax and penalties in the notice.

We hold that he is liable in all respects, and we will grant summary judgment in the Commissioner's favor.

- 5 - [*5] OPINION Mathematical or Clerical Error Notice On account ofthe mathematical or clerical errors on petitioners' 2008 Federal income tax return respondent calculated and assessed tax pursuant to section 6213(b)(1).

We conclude that there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact requiring a trial, and we hold that the Commissioner is entitled to the entry ofa decision sustaining the determination and proposed levy as a matter oflaw.

For reasons we explain later, we hold that: (cid:16)042 The Gaitans are not entitled to reduce the gross income from their clothing-export business by $134,575 for cost of goods sold (part 1(a) of the opinion).

Armstrong and an accuracy-relatedpenalty of$302 pursuantto section 6662.1 The Armstrongs petitioned this Court, pursuant to section 6213(a), to redetermine the deficiency and the accompanying penalty.

OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: This case is before the Court pursuant to section 6213 (a)1 for redetermination of an accuracy-related penalty.

High initiated this case pursuant to section 6213(a), asking this Court to redetermine the deficiency.

Howev'er, section 6213 provides that for an assessment of a deficiency to be valid a notice of deficiency must first be mailed to a taxpayer at his last known address once - 18 - the Secretary determines a deficiency in respect of the tax owed.

31 UBIT deficiency 2001 $319, 094 2002 444, 554 2003 342, 371 NEA brought this case pursuant to section 6213 (a) , asking this Court to redetermine.those deficiencies.

Both of petitioner's objections dispute the deficiencies and/or underlying tax liabilities for taxable years 2005 and 2006 Discussion Jurisdiction In a case seeking -the redetermination of a deficiency pursuant to section 6213, the jurisdiction of the, Court depends on the taxpayer's timely filing a petition.

" 4 And while we have held that "it is not the existence of a deficiency but the Commissioner's determination of a deficiency that provides a predicate for Tax Court jurisdiction," Hannan v . Commissioner, 52 T .C . 787, 791 (1969), the issue here is whether the Commissioner had the power to determine a deficiency that included adjustments to make Winter's return consistent with BFC's .

We hold that SO McGee did not obtain verification that petitioners signed waivers of the restrictions on asse ssment of the additional taxes for 2004 and 2005 and, thus, did not obtain verification that all requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure had been met .

Williams petitioned this Court, pursuant to section 6213(a), to redetermine those deficiencies .

Moore petitioned this Court, pursuant to section 6213(a), to redetermine this deficiency .

We conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial in this case, and we hold that respondent is entitled to the entry of a decision sustaining the determination and proposed levy as a matter of law .

Petitioner agrees that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this case to redetermine a deficiency pursuant to section 6213(a) because the notice of deficiency is invalid .

First, a claim may be raised as an affirmative defense in a petition for redetermination of a deficiency filed pursuant to section 6213(a).

We hold that petitioner is not entitled to file a joint return for the taxable year 1997.

Pursuant to section 6213(a),4 this Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in tax depends upon a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition.

Petitioner also asserts that even if Exhibit BB is admitted, the audit deficiency assessment for the year ended February 28, 1991, was improper under section 6213 because no notice of deficiency for that year was issued to the transferor.

Now codified in section 7421(a), the statute provides: Except as provided in sections 6015(e), 6212(a) and (c), 6213(a), 6232(c), 6330(e)(1), 6331(i), 6672(c), 6694(c), 7426(a) and (b)(1), 7429(b), and 7436, no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed. For those who consider legislative history relevant, Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 48

Sanders’s Petition was not received within the time prescribed by section 6213(a). Notwithstanding that the notice of deficiency was mailed on September 8, 2022, Mr. Sanders’s last day to file his petition was Monday, December 12, 2022, because section 6213(a) allows him to rely on the last day for filing that was specified in the notice. Although he logged into DAWSON on December 12, 2022, Mr. Sanders did not file his Petition until the next day. He initiated the upload of the Petition 9 second

The IRS argues that the requirement ofsection 6213(a)--that no assessment ofan income-tax deficiency be made before the notice ofdeficiency is mailed --is distinguishable from the requirement that the Eleventh Circuit opinion held to be imposed by section 6672(b)(3)--thatno assessment ofthe trust-fund-recovery penalty can be made before the final administrative determination is made with respect to a timely protest. These two requirements are different, in the IRS's view, because the requirement

question has arisen as to our authority to dismiss without entering a decision, we must decide whether to grant petitioner’s motion. Historically, most cases coming before this Court have involved petitions to redetermine “deficiencies” pursuant to section 6213. Generally, a deficiency occurs when the correct tax liability exceeds that reported on the taxpayer’s return. See sec. 6211(a). When our jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency is invoked section 7459(d) provides: SEC. 7459(d). Effect o

Section 6213 also places important restrictions on the IRS’ ability to assess a deficiency and begin collecting the tax. As a rule, the IRS may not assess an income tax deficiency until it has mailed a notice of deficiency and the relevant period (90 or 150 days, as applicable) has elapsed. Sec. 6213(a). If the applicable time window closes and the

[E] The Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit said that residency was irrelevant because the taxpayer was outside the country, was not likely to return, and - 16 - therefore was entitled to 150 days under section 6213. Residency is, indeed, irrelevant where a U.S. resident is temporarily outside the country. There is nothing in Mindell, which rejected the notion that the 150-day rule is limited to foreign residents, or our Opinions, to support the contention in the first dissenting opinion tha

y v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. at 782. In Hamilton, the Court held that a U.S. citizen who resided in a foreign country was a person “outside” of the United States. Hamilton v. Commissioner, 13 T.C. at 748, 754 (construing the predecessor to the current section 6213). The Court in Hamilton also held that the 150-day rule was not applicable to a U.S. resident who was temporarily absent from the country. Id. The Court concluded that Congress, in enacting the 150-day rule, “was legislating with respect

It is su el proper to attempt to bring these other sections to bear on the meaning of tax ishoun" in section 6664(a), but I submit that there are skips and fiaws "in this an'alysis of sections 6201(a) (3) and 6213(b). The House Report that the concurring opinion cites'clearly states that then-current law (before section 6201(a) (3)) already allowed the IRS to retrieve, without deficiency procedures, any excess credit that had been mistakenly allowed against the tax liability. Retrieval of those

Determinations and Redeterminations by This Court Section 6015(e)(1)(A), which authorizes this Court to determine the appropriate relief available under section 6015, is similar to our deficiency jurisdiction in section 6213, which provides that taxpayers who receive a notice of deficiency may petition this Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.

he S corporation had reported paying to Mr. Grigoraci. In Grigoraci I, this Court held that this discrete portion of the deficiency was not attributable to an “affected item” and that consequently this Court had jurisdiction to review it pursuant to sec. 6213. This Court held in Grigoraci I that the Grigoracis properly reported this income as wages from the S corporation and owed no self-employment tax on it. By order dated May 9, 2003, we vacated our order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

ributable to petitioner’s recalculation of the group’s 1981 and 1984 tax liabilities. Respondent’s payment of the tentative refunds was consistent with the requirements of section 6411, and his later determination of a deficiency was consistent with section 6213. - 66 - Conclusion Petitioner applied for tentative refunds based on CNOLs it claimed for 1986. Respondent followed the letter of section 6411 and paid the tentative refunds exactly as petitioner requested within 90 days of receiving the

— Subsection (a) of section 6213 (relating to restrictions applicable to deficiencies; petition to Tax Court) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: “Any petition filed with the Tax Court on or before the last date specified for filing such petition by the Secretary in the notice of deficiency shall be treated as timely filed.”.

ency is mailed until the time to file a petition expires (90 days, or 150 days if applicable), or until the decision of the Tax Court becomes final if a petition is filed. Sec. 6213(a). Petitioner brought this action under section 6404(g), not under section 6213. Section 6404(g) does not bar assessment, unlike section 6213. Thus, we lack jurisdiction under section 6404 to decide petitioner’s claim that respondent made a wrongful levy. 2. Refund Offset Petitioner contends that he may offset his 1

— The principles of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under * * * [section 7436] in the same manner as if the Secretary’s determination described in subsection (a) were a notice of deficiency.

Petitioner’s innocent spouse claim is one such issue. Respondent argues that section 6015(e) precludes judicial review of claims made pursuant to subsection (f) and limits judicial review only to claims made pursuant to subsections (b) and (c). Respondent contends, inter alia, that the references in section 6015(e)(3) and (4) to subsecti

Deficiency Redeterminations In proceedings to redetermine deficiencies brought under section 6213, the Tax Court reviews a new record created by the parties.

Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss for Fail- ure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, contending that petitioner did not petition this Court within the time prescribed by section 6213 and that the circumstances do not warrant “equitable toll- ing” of the filing deadline.1 We agree and accordingly will grant the Motion.

§§ 6213, 7442; Rule 13(a), (c); Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 127, 166–67; Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). Section 6213(a) generally provides that the petition must be filed within 90 days after the notice of defi- ciency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day).

§§ 6213, 7442; Rule 13(a), (c); Hallmark, 159 T.C. at 127, 166–67; Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); see Armstrong v. Commissioner, 15 F.3d 970, 973 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1992-328. For taxpayers in the United States, the petition must be filed within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday

§§ 6213, 7442; Rules 13, 20; Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 1, 3–4 (2017). Under section 6213(a), a petition must be filed within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed. If the notice of deficiency specifies a last day for filing a petition that is later than the 90th day, then the deadline by which to file a petition is extended to the da

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, contending that we lackjurisdiction under section 6213 or otherwise with respect to the adjustment in question.

Special Rules.-- (1) Restrictions on assessment and collection pending action, etc.--The principles ofsubsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) ofsection 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under * * * [section 7436] in the same manner as ifthe Secretary's determination described in subsection (a) were a notice ofdeficiency.

The Court has jurisdiction.to make such a redetermination under section 6213 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Motion To Restrain In the absence of jurisdiction under section 6213, it follows that the Court has no authority to act on petitioners' motion to restrain assessment or collection.

Section 6213 ( a) bars the Commissioner from assessing a tax liability until our decision becomes final , and section 7481 a makes our decisions final when opportunities for appeal have been exhausted . Section 7485 (a)(1), however, supersedes section 6213(a) by providing that assessment shall not be stayed during an appeal unless a taxpayer such a

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 the Commissioner’s determination in the notice of deficiency is correct as “it is not the existence of a deficiency but the Commissioner’s determination of a de

(b) Later Filing Deadlines Specified on Notice of Deficiency To Be Binding.--Subsection (a) of section 6213 (relating to restrictions applicable to deficiencies; petition to Tax Court) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: “Any petition filed with the Tax Court on or before the last date specified for filing such petition by the Secretary in the notice of deficiency shall be treated as timely filed”.

Section 6213 ( a) provides that a Sunday is not counted as the last day of the period . Consequently, the last day for filing a timely petition in this case was Monday, November 13, 2006 . (The November 13, 2006 deadline was also stated on the face of the notice of deficiency, pursuant to section 3463 ( a) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructur

In view of,the foregoing, we hold that the petition in this case was not timely filed pursuant to either section 6213,(a) or section 7502 .

Consequently, we have no - 6 - jurisdiction over this case pursuant to section 6213 or 6330(d) (1) .

Held: R's application of P's 1999 remittances to P's 1997 account to recoup the erroneous nonrebate refund for 1997 contravenes O'Bryant v. United States, 49 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 1995). These 1999 remittances should have been applied against unpaid taxes that are the subject of the instant levies. Consequently, the levies must be reconsidered by R on remand. P claimed in his Appeals hearing and herein that the proposed levy for 1999 should not be sustained because R improperly changed the amounts

section 6651(a)(1) failure-to-file addition to tax of $40,824.70, and a section 6662 accuracy-related penalty of $81,649. Petitioners received the notice but did not file a petition with this Court for a redetermination of the deficiency pursuant to section 6213. Consequently, respondent issued a Final Notice--Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, informing petitioners of respondent’s intent to levy and of petitioners’ right to a hearing before respondent’s Appeals Offi

ted taxable income of $845,902, a deficiency of $312,721, -3- and a section 6662 accuracy-related penalty of $62,544.20. Petitioners received the notice but did not file a petition with this Court for a redetermination of the deficiency pursuant to section 6213. Consequently, respondent issued a Final Notice-- Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, informing petitioners of respondent’s intent to levy and of petitioners’ right to a hearing before respondent’s Appeals Offi

This is important not only because of the statutory requirements of section 6213, but also because, as petitioner points out, taxpayers are put in the position of quite reasonably assuming that the address information they provide to the IRS will be noted and acted upon.

iews”. The case cited by the majority, Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974), merely holds that, in reviewing a notice of deficiency, we typically do not go behind that notice.6 6In reviewing a notice of deficiency under sec. 6213, our standard of review is usually de novo. There are, however, instances in which, in reviewing a notice of deficiency, our standard of review is abuse of discretion (for example, in cases involving a change in accounting method determined

notice. Id. The conference report does not indicate why the reference to the taxpayer’s last known address was added to sec. 6015(e)(1)(A). While we dispose of respondent’s argument by applying caselaw dealing with jurisdictional requirements under sec. 6213, we note that the statutory language in sec. 6015(e)(1)(A) is different in several respects, including the fact that sec. 6015(e)(1)(A) specifically counts the 90-day period from the date the notice of determination is mailed to the “taxpaye

Respondent moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed pursuant to section 6213.1 FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

Failure to timely file prevents this Court from acquiring jurisdiction. See Estate of Cerrito v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 896, 898 (1980); Stone v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 617, 618 (1980). A petition is timely if it is filed with the Court within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed. See sec. 6213(a). - 7 - If a petition is filed

Petitioner failed to petition this Court within the time required by section 6213 with respect to the notice of deficiency.

Section 6213 authorizes a taxpayer to whom a notice of deficiency has been sent to petition the Tax Court for a redetermination of such deficiency. In response to the notice, petitioner filed the petition on December 9, 1997. Prima facie, we have jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiencies determined in the notice. See, generally, secs. 6211 throu

a specified time, for a redetermination of the deficiency. Section 6214 provides that this Court has jurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount of tax deficiencies that are contested in timely petitions filed by taxpayers. Sec. 6214(a); see also sec. 6213. If this Court finds that there is no deficiency and further finds that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of tax for the same taxable year, section 6512(b) provides that "the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to determine the amount of s

a specified time, for a redetermination of the deficiency. Section 6214 provides that this Court has jurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount of tax deficiencies that are contested in timely petitions filed by taxpayers. Sec. 6214(a); see also sec. 6213. If this Court finds that there is no deficiency and further finds that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of tax for the same taxable year, section 6512(b) provides that "the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to determine the amount of s

out any remittance. 9. The petitioners have not attached a copy of any statutory notice of deficiency for 1986 to their petition as required by Tax Court Rule 34(b)(8) and have failed to establish that the Court has acquired jurisdiction pursuant to I.R.C. § 6213 and Tax Court Rule 13. Relying upon respondent's representations, this Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss with respect to 1986 and stated: petitioners have failed to establish that a notice of deficiency has been sent for the

r can demonstrate that the petition was timely filed. Petitioner has not produced any evidence which would indicate another date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. Accordingly, the petition was not filed within the 90-day period pursuant to section 6213. Respondent's motion to dismiss on the basis of petitioner's failure to timely petition this Court is granted.3 We have found that the notice of deficiency was mailed on July 8, 1994. Respondent has indicated that she concedes that the n

§§ 6213, 7442; Rule 13(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 166–67 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). A notice of defi- ciency will generally be deemed valid if it is mailed to a taxpayer at his last known address. § 6212(b); Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 736 (1989), aff’d, 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1

ce within those limits. III. Scope and standard of review We now turn to the scope and standard of review, and a bit of semantics. The parties agree that we review deficiencies resulting from the Commissioner’s section 482 allocations de novo, under section 6213. Instead their focus is on the standard of review; they disagree over the deference we should afford respondent’s determination. 56 At trial we permitted testimony about posttransaction developments but cautioned the parties that the mor

§§ 6213 and 6214(a), including determinations regarding R’s compliance with I.R.C. § 6751(b)(1). Held, further, if the APA provisions P cites were deemed relevant here, a supervisor’s approval of a penalty recommendation does not constitute “final agency action” subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 704. Held, further, if the supervisor’s appr

Others might pay the tax, file a refund claim, and file a refund suit. See I.R.C. § 7422(a). And yet others might simply agree to the deficiency or default and allow assessment. Thus, in addition to the administrative burden, applying traditional deficiency procedures to partnerships could lead to inconsistent results. I. TEFRA Overv

If the issue of relief comes up in a deficiency case filed under section 6213, the standard and scope of review are entirely de novo, as with most issues in our deficiency cases.

§§ 6213, 7442; Rule 13(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, 166–67 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). A notice of deficiency will generally be deemed valid, whether or not the taxpayer receives it, if it is mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address by certified or registered mail. See I.R.C. § 6212(b

Powers did not petition this Court within the time provided by section 6213, and the IRS accordingly assessed the deficiency on July 30, 2018.

Section 6213 Prohibition on Assessment Another limitation on assessment is found in section 6213. For taxes that are subject to deficiency procedures (like the tax imposed by section 4973),3 with exceptions not relevant here, the Commissioner may not make an assessment without first issuing a notice of deficiency and waiting for a required period.

3 Discussion The majority of the Court’s cases stem from petitions under section 6213 for the Court to redetermine deficiencies set forth in a notice of deficiency by the Commissioner.2 In such a case, when the Court grants a motion to dismiss, unless the dismissal is for lack of jurisdiction, the Court is generally required by section 7459(d) to sustain the Commissioner’s determination with regard to the amount of the

This Court has long held that when taxpayers bring cases under section 6213 asking us to redetermine a tax deficiency, we cannot grant motions to dismiss without prejudice because we are mandated by section 7459(d) to enter a decision sustaining the Commissioner’s deficiency determination.5 See Estate of Ming v.

A deficiency in tax is assessed, collected, and paid only after [the Commissioner] makes a determination and sends a notice of that determination in accordance with section 6213, which provides for the jurisdiction of this Court.

cy was invalid because “it was not signed under penalties of perjury by duly authorized assessment officer.” A notice of deficiency is not required to be signed “under penalties of perjury.” And given the restrictions against assessment set forth in section 6213, a notice of deficiency is not required to be signed by “a duly authorized assessment officer.” All of these arguments have been identified by the Commissioner as frivolous.

7 [*7] The usual restrictions on assessment imposed by section 6213 likewise do not apply to RBAs.

238, 243–44 (2010): Section 6213 gives the Tax Court jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency when a petition is filed timely in response to a notice of deficiency.

Addis did not file a petition in this Court under section 6213 for redetermination of that deficiency.

Restitution Background Section 6201(a)(4)(A) provides that “[t]he Secretary shall assess and collect the amount of restitution * * * [ordered by a sentencing court] for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax.” The IRS may not make such an assessment until the defendant has exhausted all appeals an

This Court’s jurisdiction under section 6512 cannot be invoked in this matter with respect to the TIPRA payment because this proceeding is not based on a post- decision action to modify a decision in a deficiency case under section 6213 or section 7481(c) or (d).

The Commissioner also issued a notice of deficiency to the Ryders for their 2005-07 tax years on January 17, 2012, just under one month after he issued the FPAA for 2005 and 2006, and nearly six years before he issued the FPAA for 2007.63 The Ryders again timely petitioned this court after they got that notice, but because there was a pa

RS free to proceed with assessment and collection of the tax but without any adjudication of liability. See sec. 6201(a); cf. sec. 6213(c) (“If the taxpayer does not file a petition with the Tax Court within the time prescribed in subsection (a) [of sec. 6213], the deficiency, notice of which has been mailed to the taxpayer, shall be assessed, and shall be paid upon notice and demand from the Secretary”). If a deficiency case is dismissed for grounds other than “lack of jurisdiction”, then the “

The Commissioner also issued a notice of deficiency to the Ryders for their 2005-07 tax years on January 17, 2012, just under one month after he issued the FPAA for 2005 and 2006, and nearly six years before he issued the FPAA for 2007.63 The Ryders again timely petitioned this court after they got that notice, but because there was a pa

The Commissioner also issued a notice of deficiency to the Ryders for their 2005-07 tax years on January 17, 2012, just under one month after he issued the FPAA for 2005 and 2006, and nearly six years before he issued the FPAA for 2007.63 The Ryders again timely petitioned this court after they got that notice, but because there was a pa

The Commissioner also issued a notice of deficiency to the Ryders for their 2005-07 tax years on January 17, 2012, just under one month after he issued the FPAA for 2005 and 2006, and nearly six years before he issued the FPAA for 2007.63 The Ryders again timely petitioned this court after they got that notice, but because there was a pa

The Commissioner also issued a notice of deficiency to the Ryders for their 2005-07 tax years on January 17, 2012, just under one month after he issued the FPAA for 2005 and 2006, and nearly six years before he issued the FPAA for 2007.63 The Ryders again timely petitioned this court after they got that notice, but because there was a pa

diction, and it exercises its jurisdiction only as explicitly authorized by statute. See Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In a deficiency case, this Court'sjurisdiction requires a valid notice ofdeficiency and a timely petition, see sec. 6213; Rule 13(a), (c), and this Court has jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction, see LG Kendrick, LLC v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 17, 27 (2016), aff'd, 684 F. App'x 744 (10th Cir. 2017). There is no dispute that petitioner filed a timely petit

This Court generally has jurisdiction over a deficiency case under section 6213 if: (1) the IRS issues the taxpayer a valid notice ofdeficiency and (2) the taxpayertimely petitions this Court.

y notice ofdeficiency to Arebec. The IRS disallowed $19,972,484 ofArebec's reported capital losses, determining a tax deficiency of $6,957,864 and penalties under section 6662 of$2,783,139. When Arebec did not petition this Court within 90 days, see sec. 6213, the IRS assessed those liabilities together with interest of$9,765,061 through August 17, 2015, the assessment date. Upon investigation ofArebec the IRS discovered that it had no assets. The IRS accordingly determined to seek recovery from

y notice ofdeficiency to Arebec. The IRS disallowed $19,972,484 ofArebec's reported capital losses, determining a tax deficiency of $6,957,864 and penalties under section 6662 of$2,783,139. When Arebec did not petition this Court within 90 days, see sec. 6213, the IRS assessed those liabilities together with interest of$9,765,061 through August 17, 2015, the assessment date. Upon investigation ofArebec the IRS discovered that it had no assets. The IRS accordingly determined to seek recovery from

y notice ofdeficiency to Arebec. The IRS disallowed $19,972,484 ofArebec's reported capital losses, determining a tax deficiency of $6,957,864 and penalties under section 6662 of$2,783,139. When Arebec did not petition this Court within 90 days, see sec. 6213, the IRS assessed those liabilities together with interest of$9,765,061 through August 17, 2015, the assessment date. Upon investigation ofArebec the IRS discovered that it had no assets. The IRS accordingly determined to seek recovery from

This Court generally has jurisdiction over a deficiency case under section 6213 if: (1) the IRS issues the taxpayer a valid notice ofdeficiency and (2) the taxpayertimely petitions this Court.

This Court generally has jurisdiction over a deficiency case under section 6213 if: (1) the IRS issues the taxpayer a valid notice ofdeficiency and (2) the taxpayertimely petitions this Court.

y notice ofdeficiency to Arebec. The IRS disallowed $19,972,484 ofArebec's reported capital losses, determining a tax deficiency of $6,957,864 and penalties under section 6662 of$2,783,139. When Arebec did not petition this Court within 90 days, see sec. 6213, the IRS assessed those liabilities together with interest of$9,765,061 through August 17, 2015, the assessment date. Upon investigation ofArebec the IRS discovered that it had no assets. The IRS accordingly determined to seek recovery from

y notice ofdeficiency to Arebec. The IRS disallowed $19,972,484 ofArebec's reported capital losses, determining a tax deficiency of $6,957,864 and penalties under section 6662 of$2,783,139. When Arebec did not petition this Court within 90 days, see sec. 6213, the IRS assessed those liabilities together with interest of$9,765,061 through August 17, 2015, the assessment date. Upon investigation ofArebec the IRS discovered that it had no assets. The IRS accordingly determined to seek recovery from

This Court generally has jurisdiction over a deficiency case under section 6213 if: (1) the IRS issues the taxpayer a valid notice ofdeficiency and (2) the taxpayertimely petitions this Court.

y notice ofdeficiency to Arebec. The IRS disallowed $19,972,484 ofArebec's reported capital losses, determining a tax deficiency of $6,957,864 and penalties under section 6662 of$2,783,139. When Arebec did not petition this Court within 90 days, see sec. 6213, the IRS assessed those liabilities together with interest of$9,765,061 through August 17, 2015, the assessment date. Upon investigation ofArebec the IRS discovered that it had no assets. The IRS accordingly determined to seek recovery from

This Court generally has jurisdiction over a deficiency case under section 6213 if: (1) the IRS issues the taxpayer a valid notice ofdeficiency and (2) the taxpayertimely petitions this Court.

This Court generally has jurisdiction over a deficiency case under section 6213 if: (1) the IRS issues the taxpayer a valid notice ofdeficiency and (2) the taxpayertimely petitions this Court.

This Court generally has jurisdiction over a deficiency case under section 6213 if: (1) the IRS issues the taxpayer a valid notice ofdeficiency and (2) the taxpayertimely petitions this Court.

y notice ofdeficiency to Arebec. The IRS disallowed $19,972,484 ofArebec's reported capital losses, determining a tax deficiency of $6,957,864 and penalties under section 6662 of$2,783,139. When Arebec did not petition this Court within 90 days, see sec. 6213, the IRS assessed those liabilities together with interest of$9,765,061 through August 17, 2015, the assessment date. Upon investigation ofArebec the IRS discovered that it had no assets. The IRS accordingly determined to seek recovery from

y notice ofdeficiency to Arebec. The IRS disallowed $19,972,484 ofArebec's reported capital losses, determining a tax deficiency of $6,957,864 and penalties under section 6662 of$2,783,139. When Arebec did not petition this Court within 90 days, see sec. 6213, the IRS assessed those liabilities together with interest of$9,765,061 through August 17, 2015, the assessment date. Upon investigation ofArebec the IRS discovered that it had no assets. The IRS accordingly determined to seek recovery from

This Court generally has jurisdiction over a deficiency case under section 6213 if: (1) the IRS issues the taxpayer a valid notice ofdeficiency and (2) the taxpayertimely petitions this Court.

This Court generally has jurisdiction over a deficiency case under section 6213 if: (1) the IRS issues the taxpayer a valid notice ofdeficiency and (2) the taxpayertimely petitions this Court.

y notice ofdeficiency to Arebec. The IRS disallowed $19,972,484 ofArebec's reported capital losses, determining a tax deficiency of $6,957,864 and penalties under section 6662 of$2,783,139. When Arebec did not petition this Court within 90 days, see sec. 6213, the IRS assessed those liabilities together with interest of$9,765,061 through August 17, 2015, the assessment date. Upon investigation ofArebec the IRS discovered that it had no assets. The IRS accordingly determined to seek recovery from

6213; Rule 13(c). - 10 - [*10] see Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. at __ (slip op. at 5), regardless of whether the taxpayerhas a colorable claim to a refund.8 As to the form that a notice ofdeficiency must take, there are no specific requirements; to be a valid notice, it must fulfill the purpose of"objectively put[ting] a reasonable taxpayer

This Court generally has jurisdiction over a deficiency case under section 6213 if: (1) the IRS issues the taxpayer a valid notice ofdeficiency and (2) the taxpayertimely petitions this Court.

This Court generally has jurisdiction over a deficiency case under section 6213 if: (1) the IRS issues the taxpayer a valid notice ofdeficiency and (2) the taxpayertimely petitions this Court.

Because she filed a petition, respondent must assess the entire amount that we detennine to be a deficiency in our decision. See sec. 6215. And respondent may not allow a credit or refund for the year to which the petition relates, except as we determine under our concurrentjurisdiction to determine -7- [*7] overpayments (or in other ci

The limitations appearing in subparagraphs (C) and (D), covering (continued...) - 7 - [*7] has been mailed to either spouse, with respect to such taxable year, a notice of deficiency under section 6212, ifthe spouse, as to such notice, files a petition with the Tax Court within the time prescribed by section 6213." The section 6013(b)(1) election applies only "ifan individual has filed a separate return" for a taxable year for which ajoint return could have been made.

sivejurisdiction 9Sec. 6213(a) allows the taxpayerto seekjudicial review ofa proposed deficiency before this Court. The amount ofan overstated withholding credit may be summarily assessed and is not subject to the deficiency procedures prescribed in sec. 6213. Sec. 6201(a)(3); Bregin v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1097, 1104-1105 (1980). Further, sec. 6213 (b)(1) specifically provides that assessments arising out ofmathematical or clerical errors are not subject to the restrictions on assessments (con

Another reference point for the analysis ofsection 6201(a)(4) is section 6665(a)(1), which provides that additions to tax, additional amounts, and civil penalties "shall be assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner a_s taxes".

A cross-reference - 12 - [*12] from section 6213 confirms that the usual restrictions on assessment do not apply to section 905(c) adjustments made by the Secretary.

e and deductions) as he is seeking them only in an effort to have us look behind the notice ofdeficiency, which we will not do. We offered petitioner a de novo redetermination ofthe deficiency determined in the notice, to which he was entitled under section 6213. Petitioner instead chose to pursue frivolous arguments. See, e.g., Davenport v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-41 (rejecting similar arguments regarding alleged procedural and legal deficiencies including information and codes allegedly

Review ofDenial ofRequest for Abatement of Interest.-- (1) In general.--The Tax Court shall havejurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayerwho meets the requirements referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether the Secretary's failure to abate interest under this section was an abuse ofdiscretion, and may order an abatement, ifsuch action is brought within 180 days after the date ofthe mailing ofthe Secretary's final determinationnot to abate such interest.

er 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". As noted above, petitioner filed a timely petition with the Court challenging respondent's deficiency notice. As a result, petitioner is specifically barred by section 6013(b)(2)(B) from filing ajoint return with Rukia Hassan. Petition

Respondent sent petitioner a notice ofdeficiency, and petitionertimely filed a petition. Accordingly, we havejurisdiction to hear this case. -7- [*7] Before 1996 ESOPs were prohibited from owning stock in S corporations. In 1996 Congress removed this restriction. See Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-188, sec. 1

We are willing to assume, therefore, that the forms petitioners received for 1999 through 2004 showed only interest. The issue in this case, however, is not whether the settlement officer's suspicions were correct but whetherthe settlement officer's rejection ofthe OIC was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. Gia

* * * * * * * * * * (c) Further Deficiency Letters Restricted.--(1) General rule.--If the Secretaryhas mailed to the taxpayer a notice ofdeficiency as provided in subsection (a), and the taxpayer files a petition with the Tax Court within the time prescribed in section 6213 (a), the Secretary shall have no right to determine any additional deficiency ofincome tax for the same taxable year, * * * See also Gmelin v.

Pursuantto section 6213, the 90-day period for filing a valid petition in this Court was suspended with respect to intervenor during the pendency ofhis bankruptcy case.

OPINION LAUBER, Judge: Respondent determined income tax deficiencies of $12,104 and $47,401 for petitioners' 2008 and 2009 tax years, respectively, and petitioners timely sought redetermination under section 6213.¹ The deficiencies stem from disallowance offoreign tax credits that petitioners claimed for payment ofcertain French taxes.

— Rules similar to the rules of section 6213 shall apply for purposes ofdetefmining the date of the mailing referred to in paragraph (1).

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Lauber, Judge: Respondent determined income tax deficiencies of $12,104 and $47,401 for petitioners’ 2008 and 2009 tax years, respectively, and petitioners timely sought redetermination under section 6213. The deficiencies stem from disallowance of foreign tax credits that petitioners claimed for payment of certain French taxes. The sole remaining issue for decision is whether two of these taxes— la contribution sociale généralisée (general social contribution or CSG) an

In separate notices ofdeficiency issued to each petitioner or couple, respondent determined deficiencies and disallowed the deductions in full on the grounds that petitioners did not meet the requirements ofsection 170.2 Petitioners petitioned the Court to redetermine the deficiencies under section 6213, and we consolidated these cases pursuantto Rule 141.

ion to proceed with collection actions. 1. Held: P's contention that the period in which to file a petition for review ofa collection action determination under I.R.C. sec. 6330 affecting the underlying tax liability is the 90-day period provided in I.R.C. sec. 6213 rather than the 30-day period provided in I.R.C. sec. 6330(d)(1) does not demonstrate a substantial ground for difference ofopinion within the meaning ofI.R.C. sec. 7482(a)(2)(A). *This Opinion supplements our previously filed Opinio

In separate notices ofdeficiency issued to each petitioner or couple, respondent determined deficiencies and disallowed the deductions in full on the grounds that petitioners did not meet the requirements ofsection 170.2 Petitioners petitioned the Court to redetermine the deficiencies under section 6213, and we consolidated these cases pursuantto Rule 141.

In separate notices ofdeficiency issued to each petitioner or couple, respondent determined deficiencies and disallowed the deductions in full on the grounds that petitioners did not meet the requirements ofsection 170.2 Petitioners petitioned the Court to redetermine the deficiencies under section 6213, and we consolidated these cases pursuantto Rule 141.

6213; GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). In order to determine whether the Court has - 10 - jurisdiction to redetermine the partner-level deficiency and the accuracy-related penalty in this case, the Court will address the parties' disagreement over whether the 2005 notice is valid. It is respondent's position that,

Like a notice of deficiency under section 6213'(a) , a notice sof final determination not to abate interest únder section 6404 (h) isa la prereqüisite "to the Court' s jurisdiction and ser res as a taxpayer's "ticket" to the Tax Court.

This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency pursuang to section 6213 (a) depends on the issuance o'f.a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition.

R. C. The IRS contends that Slingsby received notices of deficiency for 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 and therefore is bar¾ed by sec. 6330(c) (2) (B), I.R.C., from contesting his underlying tax liabilities for 1999, 2001, and 2002. Slingsby claims that he received no notices of deficiency except for the notice for 2003, which

PARIS, Judoe: Petitioner brought this action under section 6213 (a)1 seeking redetermination of the following deficiencies in 1All section references are to the Iéternal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.

e and Procedure. -2- The IRS issued Longy O. Anyanwu a notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212 showing a deficiency in income tax of $1,628 for the tax year 2005. Anyanwu timely petitioned the Court for redetermination of the deficiency under section 6213 (a). The issue we resolve in this opinion is whether Anyanwu is entitled to miscellaneous itemized deductions of $18,190 and an $850 deduction claimed for "printer, ink cartridges, and paper". We determine that the deductions are not allo

,6601(e) provides that interest is not subject to deficiency procedures.

t No. 8804- 07S. However, the notice of deficiency was dat·ed Dec. 5, 2005, and the petition. was not filed untll Apr. 19, 2007. Accordingly, that case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed under sec. 6213 (a) . collection due process (CDP) hearing and scheduling a telephone conference for December 20, 2006 - The November 22, 2006, letter advised petitioners that they could not dispute respondent's det rmination of their underlying liability

However, the withholding credit and Schedule C deduction issues were not raised in the statutory notice of deficiency.and are therefore new matters within the meaning of Rule 142(a).

6213 (b) (4); Hazel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-134. The Court also has jurisdiction to determine an overpayment in a deficiency proceeding. See sec. 6512(b) (1). - 4 - Discussion I. Burden of Proof and Production Generally, the Commissioner's determinations are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those de

A deficiency in tax is assessed, collected, and paid only after respondent makes a determination and sends a notice of that determination in accordance with section 6213, which provides for the jurisdiction of this Court.

A deficiency in tax is assessed, collected, and paid only after respondent makes a determination and sends a notice of that determination in accordance with section 6213, which provides for the jurisdiction of this Court.

required to make the shareholder's treatment of the item consistent with the corporation's treatment of such item as arising out of a mathematical or clerical error and shall assess the increase in tax attributable to the inconsistency according to sec. 6213 (b) (1). Sec. 6037(c) (3). We lack jurisdiction over summary assessments made pursuant to sec. 6213 (b) (1). Meyer v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 555, 559-560 (1991). However, where the Commissioner issues a single, valid notice of deficiency wit

6213 (i .e ., a deficiency proceeding) . King v . Commissioner, supra .at 121-122 ; Corson v . Commissioner, supra at 363 ; Butler v . Commissioner , 114 T .C. 276, 287-289 (2000) . A taxpayer may also request relief in a petition for review of a lien or levy action . See secs . 6320(c), 6330(c) (2) (A) (i) . Finally, a taxpayer may file a "stand a

Alternatively, the partner can pay the affected item deficiency, file a claim for refund, and then bring a refund action. See 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(a)(1) (2006). The devil, of course, is in the details, and sections 6221-6233, as originally enacted, raised many difficult interpretive issues that occupied this Court and others for years aft

7485,9 and began 9 Section 6213 bars the IRS from assessing a tax liability until our decision becomes final, and section 7481 makes our decisions final only when all opportunities for appeal have been exhausted .

termined under Rule 155, as described below. Petitioner concedes that the amount owed for 1998, i .e ., the deficiency, will be at leas t $906,000 . The notice of deficiency was sent to petitioner under section 6212, and the petition was filed under section 6213 . Section 6214(b) provides : SEC . 6214(b) . Jurisdiction Over Other Years and Quarters .-- The Tax Court in redetermining a deficiency of income tax for any taxable year * * * shall consider such :; facts with relation to the taxes for

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 .

13(a)(1) maybe . 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" . Sec . 6013(b)(2)(B) . The notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner on February 25, 2008, before the submission of the April .7, 2008 joint return, and a petition with the Tax Court was timely filed on May 28, &2008 . Therefore, p

Section 6213 (d) permits a taxpayer to waive the restrictions under section 6213 (a(cid:127)) that prohibit, the IRS from ' assess.ing or collecting, a deficiency until the decision of the Court has become final . When a section 6213 (d) waiver on the assessment applies, however , interest is to be suspended if a notice and demand for payment - is

r , 104 T .C . 140, 149, 159 (1995) . C. Jurisdiction To Decide Mr . Martin's Employee Classification Petitioners each received a notice of deficiency, and they invoked our jurisdiction . by filing petitions for redetermination of a deficiency under section 6213(a) . Section 6214(a) grants us jurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount of a deficiency - 8 - and to determine whether any additional amounts or any additions to tax should be assessed . ' Pursuant to section 7436, the Tax Court ha

Section 6213 ( a) provides that taxpayers who receive a notice of deficiency may petition this Court for a " redetermination" of the deficiency . Section 6214 ( a) provides this Court jurisdiction to "redetermine" the amount of the deficient . Congress first granted the Board of ax Appeals (the predecessor to the Tax Court) jurisdiction to "redeter

Discussion I . Whether the Period of Limitations Has Expired Petitioner argues that respondent is barred from assessing his 2001 tax because the 3-year period of limitations under section 6501(a) expired before the mailing of the deficiency notice . Accordingly, he requests a refund of the 2001 tax paid in August 2007 . Section

858, provides that the Court has jurisdiction to apply the doctrine of equitable recoupment to the same extent that the doctrine is available in civil tax cases before the District Courts of the United States and the U.S.

(2) Special rules.-- (A) Date of mailing.--Rules similar to the rules of section 6213 shall apply for purposes of determining the date of the mailing referred to in paragraph (1).

7436(d)(1) provides that “The principles of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under this section in the same manner as if the Secretary’s determination described in subsection (a) were a notice of deficiency.” We also have jurisdiction in a deficiency proceeding to make a determination under sec.

dition in 2002 . Respondent's notice of deficiency in this case does not constitute a "math error notice" . Generally, a "math error notice of adjustment" does not result in a notice of deficiency but results in an automatic assessment notice under section 6213 (b) . Petitioner, however , received a notice of deficiency and expressly had a right to petition this Court . Sec . 6213(a) . The IRM provision referred to by petitioner relating to math errors provides no help to petitioner . With regar

- 11 - Validity of Notice of Deficiency Section 6213 does not specify the form or the content of a notice of deficiency.

6213 (b) (1) ; Heasley v. Commissioner, 45 T. C. 48, 457 (1966) ; Ciciora v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-202. Finally, we note that in his pretrial memorandum, petitioner argues that we should reverse reshondent' s determination because "the enforcement of th.e [AMT] results in inequities". He also contends that Congress soon will enact legi

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.

r curiam 499 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1974). In the instant case, the notice of deficiency for taxable year 1997 was issued to petitioners on November 17, 1999, and the petition was filed on February 24, 2003, clearly outside the 90- day period required by section 6213. In addition, the tax deficiency determined by respondent for taxable year 1997 has - 21 - been fully paid by petitioners. Petitioners’ attempt to add taxable year 1997 to the instant case by way of their amended petition, although under

For purposes of section 6213, the term “mathematical or clerical error” is defined by section 6213(g)(2).

pardy levy but had improperly refused to sell in compliance with the taxpayer's request made pursuant to sec. 6335(f), see Zapara v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 223 (2005). ¹4 By "deficiency proceeding" we mean a proceeding filed in Tax Court pursuant to sec. 6213 challenging a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to sec. 6212(a). 15 But cf. Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 421 n.7 (1943) (noting the Board's assumption of jurisdiction, and the legislative revocation thereof

For purposes of section 6213, the term “mathematical or clerical error” is defined by section 6213(g)(2).

Section 6213 (a) provides that where a notice of deficiency is addressed to a person within the United States, the taxpayer may file with this Court a petition to redetermine the deficiency within 90 days of the mailing of that notice of deficiency. Section 7502 (a) provides that in general, timely mailing is treated as timely filing if a petition

For purposes of section 6213, the term “mathematical or clerical error” is defined by section 6213(g)(2).

6320, 6330 involving lien and levy actions (collection actions).

First, a taxpayer may seek relief from joint and several liability on a joint return by raising the matter as an affirmative defense in a petition for a redetermination of a deficiency filed under section 6213 (i.e., a deficiency proceeding).

First, we have jurisdiction where a taxpayer petitioned this Court for redetermination of a deficiency under section 6213 and claimed innocent spouse relief under section 6015 as an affirmative defense.

turn. See, e.g., Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 287-289 (2000) (a taxpayer may seek relief from joint liability on a joint return by raising the matter as an affirmative defense in a petition for a redetermination of a deficiency filed under section 6213). Spouses filing a joint Federal income tax return are generally jointly liable for the tax shown on the return or - 38 - found to be owing. Sec. 6013(d)(3); Butler v. Commissioner, supra at 282. In certain cases, however, an individual f

Nor is there any cross-reference in section 6015 to the procedures set forth in section 6213.3 On the other hand, if the taxpayer raises a section 6015 claim as an affirmative defense in a petition for redetermination invoking the Court’s deficiency jurisdiction under section 6213(a), the taxpayer would be able to take advantage of the benefits of section 6213(f).

Thus, in deficiency proceedings commenced in this Court under section 6213, such as these cases, while we have jurisdiction to redetermine the - 17 - Federal income tax deficiencies, we do not have jurisdiction to determine whether a bankruptcy court has discharged a taxpayer from an unpaid tax liability.

atutory period for filing a timely stand-alone petition for the period during which the person is prohibited by reason of the automatic stay from filing such a petition. Nor is there any cross-reference in section 6015 to the procedures set forth in section 6213. On the other hand, if the taxpayer raises a section 6015 claim as an affirmative defense in a petition for redetermination invoking the Court’s deficiency jurisdiction under section 6213(a), the taxpayer would be able to take advantage

We have held in deficiency proceedings commenced in the Court under section 6213 that we do not have jurisdiction to determine whether a U.S.

Commissioner, supra at 120-121, we stated: We have held in deficiency proceedings commenced in the Court under section 6213 that we do not have jurisdiction to determine whether a U.S.

Jurisdiction To Decide Dischargeability Issue We have often held in deficiency proceedings under section 6213 that we lack jurisdiction to decide whether a tax liability has been discharged in bankruptcy.

Special Rules.-- (1) Restrictions on Assessment and Collection Pending Action, Etc.--The principles of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under this section in the same manner as if the Secretary’s determination described in subsection (a) were a notice of deficiency.

Grigoraci, respectively, and collectively the Grigoracis) sought redetermination under section 6213 of a deficiency for tax on self-employment income and a negligence accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).2 Respondent determined a deficiency of $12,670 and an accuracy-related penalty of $2,534 for 1996.

ices of deficiency dated and mailed on December 8, 1994. Respondent contends that a notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner’s last known address, the Bay Harbor Island - 5 - address, on December 8, 1994, and this satisfies the requirements of section 6213. Respondent asserts that the mailing of another notice of deficiency for the same tax year with a new date does not invalidate the prior valid notice of deficiency. Discussion This Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends

Grigoraci, respectively, and collectively the Grigoracis) sought redetermination under section 6213 of a deficiency for tax on self-employment income and a negligence accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).2 Respondent determined a deficiency of $12,670 and an accuracy-related penalty of $2,534 for 1996.

Grigoraci, respectively, and collectively the Grigoracis) sought redetermination under section 6213 of a deficiency for tax on self-employment income and a negligence accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).2 Respondent determined a deficiency of $12,670 and an accuracy-related penalty of $2,534 for 1996.

right to request an Appeals Office hearing during the 30-day period under paragraph (2). 3 Although the term “last known address” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, we have held that a taxpayer’s last known address (as the term is used in sec. 6213 regarding the proper mailing of a notice of deficiency) is the address shown on the taxpayer’s most recently filed return, absent clear and concise notice of a change of address. See, e.g., Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988);

— The principles of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481 shall apply to proceedings brought under this section in the same manner as if the Secretary’s determination described in subsection (a) were a notice of deficiency.

e Secretary’s filing of a notice of lien under section 6323 or the Secretary’s intent to levy, respectively, by mailing the notice required by section 6320(a) or section 6330(a), as the case may be, by certified or registered mail to such person at his or her last known address.4 Section 6320(a)(2) provides that the prescribed notice shall be provided not more than 5 business days after the day on which the notice of lien under section 6323 is filed.

Although we have jurisdiction to redetermine the income tax deficiency under section 6213, the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide employee benefit entitlement issues that fall within the purview of various departments and agencies of the United States Government.

Section 6213(c) provides as follows: “If the taxpayer does not file a petition with the Tax Court within the time prescribed in subsection (a) [of section 6213], the deficiency, notice of which has been mailed to the taxpayer, shall be assessed, and shall be paid upon notice and demand from the Secretary.” (Emphasis added.) See also sec.

eturn 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”. Petitioners, therefore, may not file a joint return for their 1997 tax year. - 9 - Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) for each of the years at issue. Section 6662(a) i

6213 generally allows taxpayers 90 days from the date of the notice of deficiency in which to file a petition. Our jurisdiction with respect to a notice of deficiency is dependent upon a timely petition. See sec. 6213; Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000). - 4 - PLEASE RESPOND IMMEDIATELY Your federal tax is still not paid. We previously

Section 6213 confers jurisdiction on this Court to redetermine deficiencies in income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes. See also secs. 6211- 8 The statement of account dated Feb. 29, 2000, which the parties have stipulated, provides for a revised estate tax liability of $2,003,524. This figure is $162,041 less than the estate tax liability o

1983. See TEFRA sec. 292(e)(1), 96 Stat. 574. Section 7430 has been amended a number of times.10 A proceeding is "commenced" for purposes of the effective date of section 7430 upon the filing of a petition for redetermination of a deficiency under section 6213. Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430, 438 (1997). The petitions in these consolidated cases were filed as early as 1983 and as late as 1994.11 Although several versions of section 7430 arguably are applicable in these cases

1983. See TEFRA sec. 292(e)(1), 96 Stat. 574. Section 7430 has been amended a number of times.10 A proceeding is "commenced" for purposes of the effective date of section 7430 upon the filing of a petition for redetermination of a deficiency under section 6213. Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430, 438 (1997). The petitions in these consolidated cases were filed as early as 1983 and as late as 1994.11 Although several versions of section 7430 arguably are applicable in these cases

1983. See TEFRA sec. 292(e)(1), 96 Stat. 574. Section 7430 has been amended a number of times.10 A proceeding is "commenced" for purposes of the effective date of section 7430 upon the filing of a petition for redetermination of a deficiency under section 6213. Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430, 438 (1997). The petitions in these consolidated cases were filed as early as 1983 and as late as 1994.11 Although several versions of section 7430 arguably are applicable in these cases

1983. See TEFRA sec. 292(e)(1), 96 Stat. 574. Section 7430 has been amended a number of times.10 A proceeding is "commenced" for purposes of the effective date of section 7430 upon the filing of a petition for redetermination of a deficiency under section 6213. Maggie Management Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 430, 438 (1997). The petitions in these consolidated cases were filed as early as 1983 and as late as 1994.11 Although several versions of section 7430 arguably are applicable in these cases

Section 6213 confers jurisdiction on this Court to redetermine deficiencies in income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes. See also secs. 6211-6212, 6214-6215; Rule 13. The provision which confers jurisdiction on this Court to review an addition to tax for late filing is section 6665. Section 6665(a) sets forth the general rule that the deficie

6213 generally allows taxpayers 90 days from the date of the notice of deficiency in which to file a petition. Our jurisdiction with respect to a notice of deficiency is dependent upon a timely petition. See sec. 6213; Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000). There is nothing in the record to indicate that respondent issued a notice regardin

While issues are pending before this Court, the period of limitations for assessment is generally suspended. Section 6503 provides that the mailing of a valid deficiency notice suspends the running of the period of limitations with respect to the tax liability that is the subject of such notice. In the event a petition is filed with this

This contrasts with our deficiency jurisdiction under section 6213, which expressly permits us to redetermine the "amount" of a deficiency in cases involving income, gift, estate, or certain other taxes, albeit not including employment taxes.

981); Gerl v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-289; see sec. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Consistent with this rule, the date of mailing of the petition is May 8, 1998--a date that falls beyond the 90-day filing period prescribed in section 6213. Because the petition was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to redetermine petitioner's tax liability for 1993, and we shall grant respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, as amended.4 4 Although petitioner cannot pu

A deficiency in tax is assessed, collected, and paid only after respondent makes a determination and sends a notice of that determination in accordance with section 6213, which provides for the jurisdiction of this Court.

This contrasts with our deficiency jurisdiction under section 6213, which expressly permits us to redetermine the “amount” of a deficiency in cases involving income, gift, estate, or certain other taxes, albeit not including employment taxes.

once a tax claim has been asserted and allowed in a bankruptcy proceeding * * * neither the language of the Code nor the sense of the situation suggests that any of the procedure of section 6213 again becomes prerequisite to the establishment and collection of that particular tax liability.

Tax Matters Partner's authority to extend any statutes of limitation, and an election to have any items which would be classified as partnership items classified as non-partnership items subject to the deficiency procedures of Internal Revenue Code section 6213. * * * There is no indication that respondent replied to Mrs. Callaway's letters. However, the record indicates that respondent initially concluded that Mrs. Callaway's request for prompt assessment of income tax filed on behalf of deced

6213; Rule 13(a), (c); Keeton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 377, 379 (1980); Estate of Moffat v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 499 (1966). In the instant case, respondent has not determined a "deficiency in respect of any tax imposed by subtitle A or B". Sec. 6212(a). Respondent has determined only that petitioner is liable for the three additions to tax m

once a tax claim has been asserted and allowed in a bankruptcy proceeding * * * neither the language of the Code nor the sense of the situation suggests that any of the procedure of section 6213 again becomes prerequisite to the establishment and collection of that particular tax liability.

Petitioners argue that respondent must comply with section 6213, which requires a notice of deficiency prior to assessment.

As discussed below, we conclude that for purposes of the effective date provisions of TBR2, a court "proceeding" is commenced upon the filing of a petition under section 6213 for redetermination of a deficiency.

- 13 - under section 6213, and respondent has refrained from assessing or collecting the taxes here at issue pending a final decision of this Court, as also provided in section 6213.

Petitioners argue that respondent must comply with section 6213, which requires a notice of deficiency prior to assessment.

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.

301.6213-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs. This is the route petitioner chose to follow. We find that the notice of deficiency in this case complies with the applicable statutes and reject petitioner's contentions as to its validity. Section 61 provides that gross income means "all income from whatever source derived," including (but not li

6213; Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 248, 252 (1985). Questions of jurisdiction must be decided whenever it appears that we may not have jurisdiction. Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 179 (1960). Section 6212, in pertinent part, provides that if the Commissioner "mailed to the taxpayer a notice of de

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.

m “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 provisions, sec. 7482(b)(1)(A) uses