T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-88
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JOHN RALPH JOHNSON, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 231-01S. Filed June 13, 2001.
John Ralph Johnson, pro se.
Sandra Veliz, for respondent.
LARO, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions
of section 7463 in effect at the time the petition was filed.1
Respondent moves the Court to dismiss this case for lack of
jurisdiction, asserting that petitioner failed to petition the
Court timely. Petitioner objects to respondent's motion,
1
Subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue
Code in effect for the years in issue. Rule references are to
the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
asserting that respondent did not mail the notices of deficiency
to his last known address.
Background
Respondent determined deficiencies of $1,024 and $1,931 in
petitioner’s Federal income taxes for 1993 and 1994,
respectively, and additions thereto of $188.50 and $164.50,
respectively, under section 6651(a). Respondent reflected these
determinations in notices of deficiency which he mailed to
petitioner on October 24, 1997, at the address of “P.O. Box 565,
Springfield, OR 97477". Petitioner petitioned the Court on
January 3, 2001, to redetermine the determinations set forth in
the notices of deficiency. At that time, he resided in the
Airways Heights Correction Center in Airway Heights, Washington.
Discussion
Respondent contends that this case should be dismissed as
the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by statute.
Petitioner contends that respondent mailed the notices of
deficiency to the wrong address and that he only received them on
October 22, 2000. Petitioner asserts that he has been
incarcerated since September 18, 1994.
Our jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends upon
the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed
petition. See Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C.
22, 27 (1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988);
- 3 -
Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). A
petition for redetermination of a deficiency must be filed with
this Court within 90 days (or 150 days if the notice is addressed
to a person outside the United States) after the notice of
deficiency is mailed to the taxpayer. See sec. 6213(a). The
time in which a petition must be filed is jurisdictional and
cannot be extended. Failure to file within the prescribed period
requires that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
See Estate of Cerrito v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 896, 898 (1980);
Stone v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 617, 618 (1980).
Here, the 90-day period for filing a timely petition under
section 6213(a) expired on Thursday, January 22, 1998, which date
was not a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. The
petition was mailed to the Court on December 29, 2000, a date
which is 1,162 days after the mailing of the notices. Although
petitioner may not have actually received the notices of
deficiency until October 22, 2000, a fact that he asserts but
that we do not find, the statutory 90-day period begins to run
where, as here, respondent mails the notices to petitioner’s last
known address; i.e., the address shown on his most recently filed
return. See King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 679 (9th Cir.
1988), affg. 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
1019, 1035 (1988). In this regard, respondent’s records reveal
that petitioner’s 1992 Federal income tax return was the return
- 4 -
that he filed most recent to respondent’s mailing of the notices
of deficiency and that petitioner filed his 1992 return on or
about April 15, 1993. Respondent’s records also reveal that the
address that petitioner listed on his 1992 return was the address
of the post office box to which the notices of deficiency were
mailed.
We shall grant respondent’s motion. Accordingly,
An appropriate order will
be entered dismissing this
case for lack of jurisdiction.