Gati v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 3730–99.
| Court | United States Tax Court |
| Writing for the Court | DAWSON |
| Citation | 113 T.C. 132,113 T.C. No. 8 |
| Parties | Ivan and Betty Lee Turner GATI, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Revenue, Respondent |
| Docket Number | No. 3730–99.,3730–99. |
| Decision Date | 11 August 1999 |
113 T.C. 132
113 T.C. No. 8
Ivan and Betty Lee Turner GATI, Petitioners
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Revenue, Respondent
No. 3730–99.
United States Tax Court.
Aug. 11, 1999.
[113 T.C. 132]
On Aug. 13, 1998, R mailed a final determination letter to Ps denying their request for abatement of interest for the taxable year 1978. On Feb. 17, 1999, Ps filed an imperfect petition for review with the Court under sec. 6404(g), I.R.C.Held: This case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed with the Court within the 180–day period prescribed in sec. 6404(g)(1), I.R.C.Ivan and Betty Lee Turner Gati, pro se.
Pamela Wilson Fuller and Oleida Mendiburt, for respondent.
This case was assigned to Chief Special Trial Judge Peter J. Panuthos pursuant to Rules 180, 181, and 183. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Court agrees with and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below.
PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The question presented is whether the petition was filed within the 180–day period prescribed in section 6404(g)(1). (Section 6404(g) was redesignated section 6404(i) under the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub.L. 105–206, secs. 3305(a) and
[113 T.C. 133]
3309(a), 112 Stat. 743, 745, effective with respect to tax years beginning after December 31, 1997.)
BackgroundOn August 13, 1998, respondent mailed a final determination letter to petitioners denying their request for an abatement of interest for the taxable year 1978. The final determination letter was mailed to petitioners at 47 Halstead Avenue, Harrison, N.Y. 10528 (the Halstead Avenue address).
On February 17, 1999, petitioners filed an imperfect petition for review of respondent's failure to grant their request for abatement of interest. The petition arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a U.S. Postal Service postmark date of February 15, 1999. At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided at the Halstead Avenue address.
In response to the petition, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction asserting that the petition was not filed within the 180–day period prescribed in section 6404(g)(1). Respondent provided the Court with a copy of Postal Service Form 3877 as proof that the final determination letter was mailed to petitioners on August 13, 1998. Petitioners filed an objection to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ewing v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 1940–01.
...only to the extent authorized by Congress. Fernandez v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324, 328, 2000 WL 565108 (2000); Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 133, 1999 WL 601010 (1999). 2 Whether this Court has jurisdiction is fundamental and may be raised by a party or on the Court's own motion. [11......
-
Lunsford v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 18071–99L.
...114 T.C. 492, 498, 2000 WL 777218 (2000); see also Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67, 1983 WL 14912 (1983); Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 134, 1999 WL 601010 (1999). Moreover, a petition for review under section 6330 must be filed with the appropriate court within 30 days of th......
-
Zaklama v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2012-346
...the Commissioner has not made a final determination as to the abatement of interest. See sec. 6404(h); Rule 280(b); Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 134 (1999); Bourekis v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. at...
-
Block v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 5676–02.
...that we are a Court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise our power only to the extent authorized by Congress. Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 133, 1999 WL 601010 (1999); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529, 1985 WL 15396 (1985). In her “stand alone” petition, petitioner invoked......
-
Ewing v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 1940–01.
...only to the extent authorized by Congress. Fernandez v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324, 328, 2000 WL 565108 (2000); Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 133, 1999 WL 601010 (1999). 2 Whether this Court has jurisdiction is fundamental and may be raised by a party or on the Court's own motion. [11......
-
Lunsford v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 18071–99L.
...114 T.C. 492, 498, 2000 WL 777218 (2000); see also Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67, 1983 WL 14912 (1983); Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 134, 1999 WL 601010 (1999). Moreover, a petition for review under section 6330 must be filed with the appropriate court within 30 days of th......
-
Zaklama v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2012-346
...the Commissioner has not made a final determination as to the abatement of interest. See sec. 6404(h); Rule 280(b); Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 134 (1999); Bourekis v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. at...
-
Block v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 5676–02.
...that we are a Court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise our power only to the extent authorized by Congress. Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 133, 1999 WL 601010 (1999); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529, 1985 WL 15396 (1985). In her “stand alone” petition, petitioner invoked......