Opinion
6354-21
12-20-2021
Cameron Ahad Nazermoussavi Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Lewis R. Carluzzo Chief Special Trial Judge.
This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss, filed June 25, 2021, and supplemented, August 31, 2021 (respondent's motion). Petitioner's objection to respondent's motion is embodied in his response to the motion, filed August 2, 2021. Respondent's motion was heard on Monday, December 13, 2021, when the case was called from the calendar during the Phoenix, Arizona, remote trial session of the Court. The parties appeared and were heard.
According to respondent, the case must be dismissed because (1) no notices of deficiency were issued to petitioner for 2000 through 2012 and 2014 through 2020; (2) no notices of determination were issued to petitioner for 2000 through 2020; and (3) a petition was not filed within the period prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a) with respect to a notice of deficiency dated dated January 25, 2016, for 2013, sent by certified mail to petitioner at his last known address on January 25, 2016. Petitioner does not object to the dismissal of the case upon the grounds stated in respondent's motion for all years other than 2013. With respect to 2013, petitioner asserts that the notice of deficiency is invalid because it was not received by him or signed or issued by an individual with the proper delegated authority.
Contrary to petitioner's argument, however, a notice of deficiency that is mailed to the taxpayer's last known address in accordance with the procedures under I.R.C. section 6212(a) and (b)(1) is valid even if it is never actually received by the taxpayer. Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). The record reflects that the notice of deficiency for 2013 was mailed to petitioner's last known address as required by I.R.C. section 6212(a) and (b)(1) and that the petition was filed untimely as to that notice. See I.R.C. secs. 6213(a), 7502. Moreover, the Internal Revenue Code does not require the notice of deficiency to be signed, and we have consistently rejected, in a variety of contexts, challenges to delegated authority to sign and issue notices of deficiency. See I.R.C. sec. 6212; Urban v. Commissioner, 964 F.2d 888, 889-890 (9th Cir. 1992), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1991-220; Batsch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-140; Banister v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-10.
Premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted, and this case is dismissed on the grounds relied upon in respondent's motion. It is further
ORDERED that all other motions, supplemented or otherwise, now pending in this case are moot.