Smetanka v. Comm'r
United States Tax Court
Rules 10(e) and 22, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. -- An envelope containing a petition which was addressed to the Clerk of the Court "Washington, D.C. 91217" was not properly addressed within the meaning of sec. 7502, I.R.C. 1954, since it was not addressed in accordance with the requirements of Rules 10(e) and 22, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Scott, Judge:
On February 22, 1980, respondent filed in this case a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by statute. Petitioners filed objections thereto, and a hearing was held in Los Angeles, Calif., on May 14, 1980.
The facts are not in dispute. On September 18, 1979, respondent mailed to petitioners, by certified mail, a statutory notice of deficiency determining a deficiency of $3,841 in petitioners’ income tax for the calendar year 1976 and an addition to tax under section 6653(a), I.R.C. 1954,1 in the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Moffat v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1966
- Axe v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1972
- Estate of Cerrito v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Lurkins v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
- Minuto v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Price v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- Blank v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- Klukwan, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1994
- Berry v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- Blank v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.