                   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.
