                        T.C. Memo. 1997-35



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            WILLIAM M. HEZEL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER
                  OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket Nos. 20862-96, 20863-96.   Filed January 21, 1997.



     William M. Hezel, pro se.

     Peter Reilly and Lloyd E. Mueller, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     DAWSON, Judge:   These cases were assigned to Special Trial

Judge Robert N. Armen, Jr., pursuant to the provisions of section

7443A(b)(4) and Rules 180, 181, and 183.1    The Court agrees with

     1
       Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years in
issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
                                                   (continued...)
                                - 2 -


and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set

forth below.

                 OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE

      ARMEN, Special Trial Judge:       These cases are before the

Court on respondent's Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

and petitioner's Motions to Restrain Assessment, Levy, Lien, and

Collection, as supplemented.    The principal issue for decision is

whether the Court has jurisdiction over the petitions filed in

these cases.

Background

     On June 23, 1995, respondent issued a notice of deficiency

to petitioner in which respondent determined deficiencies in and

additions to petitioner's Federal income taxes as follows:

                                 Additions to Tax
     Year    Deficiency   Sec. 6651(a)(1)       Sec. 6654

     1989    $54,253           $9,608                $2,173
     1990     58,904            9,321                 2,884
     1991     59,836            9,796                 2,425

     Also on June 23, 1995, respondent issued a separate notice

of deficiency to petitioner in which respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1992 in the

amount of $42,608 and additions to tax under sections 6651(a) and

6654(a) in the amounts of $6,901 and $1,122, respectively.      Both

notices of deficiency were addressed to petitioner at 6001 Knight


(...continued)
and Procedure.
                               - 3 -


Arnold Rd., Memphis, Tennessee 38115 (the Knight Arnold Rd.

address).

     By letter dated July 6, 1995, petitioner mailed the notices

of deficiency back to respondent marked "Refusal For Cause

Without Dishonor U.C.C. 3-501".   Petitioner's July 6, 1995,

letter, to which an "Affidavit and Declaration of Truth" was

appended, contained various tax protester arguments.

     On September 25, 1996, petitioner filed two separate

petitions with the Court contesting the determinations made by

respondent in the above-described notices of deficiency.    The

petitions arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a U.S.

Postal Service postmark date of September 23, 1996.    Petitioner

indicated on each of the petitions that his address was the

Knight Arnold Rd. address.

     On October 16, 1996, petitioner filed a Motion to Restrain

Assessment, Levy, Lien, and Collection in each docket.   Attached

to petitioner's motions are copies of a Notice of Levy and a

Notice of Federal Tax Lien.   These documents indicate that

respondent is attempting to collect the deficiencies and the

additions to tax that she determined are owing from petitioner

for the taxable years 1989 through 1992.   Petitioner contends

that respondent's collection efforts are improper because

petitioner filed petitions with the Court contesting respondent's
                                 - 4 -


determinations for the taxable years 1989 through 1992.    On

October 23, 1996, petitioner supplemented his motions.

      On October 25, 1996, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss

for Lack of Jurisdiction in each docket.    In her motions,

respondent asserts that the Court lacks jurisdiction because of

petitioner's failure to file his petitions within the 90-day

period prescribed in section 6213(a).    In Responses filed to

petitioner's motions to restrain assessment and collection,

respondent contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant

such relief in these cases.

     In a Statement filed December 17, 1996, petitioner contends

that the notices of deficiency that were mailed to him on June

23, 1995, are null and void because respondent did not respond to

his letter dated July 6, 1995.

Discussion

     This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency

depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a

timely filed petition.   Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner,

93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142,

147 (1988).   Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes the

Commissioner, after determining a deficiency, to send a notice of

deficiency to the taxpayer by certified or registered mail.      It

is sufficient for jurisdictional purposes if the Commissioner

mails the notice of deficiency to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's
                                - 5 -


"last known address."    Sec. 6212(b); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81

T.C. 42, 52 (1983).    The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days (or 150

days if the notice is addressed to a person outside of the United

States) from the date that the notice of deficiency is mailed to

file a petition in this Court for a redetermination of the

deficiency.    Sec. 6213(a).

     There is no dispute that respondent mailed the notices of

deficiency to petitioner at his last known address on June 23,

1995.    Further, petitioner admits that he received the notices of

deficiency and, in early July 1995, returned them to respondent

marked "Refusal For Cause Without Dishonor U.C.C. 3-501".

Petitioner did not file his petitions for redetermination with

the Court until September 25, 1996--some 15 months after the

notices of deficiency were mailed.      Thus, it is evident that

petitioner did not timely file his petitions for redetermination.

Consequently, we will dismiss these cases for lack of

jurisdiction on the ground that petitioner failed to file his

petitions within the 90-day time period prescribed in section

6213(a).2




     2
        Although petitioner cannot pursue his case in this Court,
he is not without a remedy. In short, petitioner may pay the
tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service,
and if the claim is denied, sue for a refund in the Federal
District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See
McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970).
                                 - 6 -


     As a final matter, we turn to petitioner's motions to

restrain assessment and collection.       Section 6213(a) provides

that the Tax Court may enjoin assessment or collection if the

Commissioner is attempting to assess or collect amounts that have

been placed in dispute in a timely-filed petition for

redetermination.   Powerstein v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 466, 471-

472 (1992); Powell v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 707, 711 (1991).         The

record reflects that the amounts that respondent has assessed and

is attempting to collect relate to petitioner's tax liability for

1989, 1990, 1991, 1992.   As a consequence of our holding that we

lack jurisdiction over those years, it follows that we lack

jurisdiction to enjoin assessment and collection.        Powell v.

Commissioner, supra.   Accordingly, we will deny petitioner's

motions for lack of jurisdiction.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                         Appropirate orders granting

                     respondent's motions, denying petitioner's

                     motions, and dismissing these cases for

                     lack of jurisdiction will be entered.
