                       T.C. Memo. 1999-298



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



         MICHAEL B. AND DIANA C. WHEELER, Petitioners v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 15374-98.             Filed September 7, 1999.




     Diana C. Wheeler, pro se.

     James Kutten, for respondent.



                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

     WOLFE, Special Trial Judge:     This case is before us on

respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction with

respect to petitioner Diana C. Wheeler (Mrs. Wheeler), to change

the caption, and to strike as to Mrs. Wheeler.    Unless otherwise

indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue
                               - 2 -

Code as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court

Rules of Practice and Procedure.

     Respondent contends that this case should be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction as it relates to Mrs. Wheeler because a

notice of deficiency was not issued to her.   For the same reason

respondent urges that the caption of this case be changed by

deleting Mrs. Wheeler's name, and that the reference to Mrs.

Wheeler in paragraph 2 of the amended petition and the entire

second page of the amended petition (on which is set forth

petitioners' arguments in favor of retaining Mrs. Wheeler as a

petitioner) be stricken.   Petitioners resided in Cedar Hill,

Missouri, when they filed their petition.

     Respondent asserts that petitioner Michael B. Wheeler (Mr.

Wheeler) failed to file Federal income tax returns for the years

1992 through 1996.   Respondent further asserts that during the

audit of Mr. Wheeler's 1992 through 1996 years, respondent dealt

with Mrs. Wheeler since she held a power of attorney from her

husband.

     On June 10, 1998, respondent issued to Mr. Wheeler, by

certified mail, a notice of deficiency for the years 1992 through

1996.   The notice was sent to Mr. Wheeler at P.O. Box 536, Cedar

Hill, MO 63016-0536.   On the same day, respondent issued to Mr.

Wheeler, by certified mail, a duplicate notice of deficiency.

The duplicate notice was sent to Mr. Wheeler at 34 El Jer Dr.,
                                - 3 -

Cedar Hill, MO 63016 (El Jer address).    Respondent contends that

neither duplicate of the notice was issued to Mrs. Wheeler.

Respondent asserts that copies of the statutory notice, issued to

Mr. Wheeler, were sent to Mrs. Wheeler only pursuant to her power

of attorney from her husband.   Petitioners claim that the notice

that was sent to the El Jer address was issued to both Mr. and

Mrs. Wheeler.

     In general, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited by

section 6213(a) to proceedings commenced by taxpayers who timely

file a petition in response to a notice of deficiency issued to

them under the authority of section 6212.    See Monge v.

Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91

T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988); Guarino v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 329, 331

(1976); see also Rule 13.   Accordingly, when a notice of

deficiency is issued to only one spouse, this Court lacks

jurisdiction over the spouse not named in the notice.    See, e.g.,

Abrams v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1356, 1357 (9th Cir. 1987)

(cited with approval in Holgate v. Commissioner, 81 AFTR2d 98-

1094, 98-1 USTC par. 50,457 (9th Cir. 1998)) (per curiam); Coe v.

Commissioner, a Memorandum Opinion of this Court dated May 14,

1932.

     Both parties introduced into evidence copies of the notice

that was sent to the El Jer address.    The copy of the notice

introduced by petitioners lists both Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler's
                                 - 4 -

names.    The copy of the notice placed in evidence by respondent

only lists Mr. Wheeler's name.    Respondent asserts that Mrs.

Wheeler's name was not listed on the notice mailed to the El Jer

address and that her name was added sometime after the notice was

mailed.    Mrs. Wheeler's name as it appears on the copy of the

notice presented by petitioners does appear to have been added

after the initial text was drafted.      Mrs. Wheeler's name on

petitioners' copy is typed in a different font from the rest of

the text.    Petitioners do not contest respondent's assertion that

Mrs. Wheeler's name apparently was added after the notice of

deficiency had been prepared.    Instead, petitioners claim that

Mrs. Wheeler's name was added by respondent before the notice was

mailed.

     Based upon this record, we find that the notice was not

issued to Mrs. Wheeler.    Michael Meyering (Mr. Meyering), an

agent in respondent's examination review staff, was assigned to

work on a case regarding Mr. Wheeler for the years 1992 through

1996.    Mr. Meyering was not assigned to work on a case regarding

Mrs. Wheeler.    Upon completion of the audit, Mr. Meyering

prepared duplicate statutory notices of deficiency in the name of

Mr. Wheeler.    Mr. Meyering did not prepare a joint notice for Mr.

and Mrs. Wheeler.    A certified mailing list introduced by

respondent verifies that duplicate originals of the notice were

issued to Mr. Wheeler.    The certified mailing list does not
                               - 5 -

indicate that a notice was issued to Mrs. Wheeler.       Mr. Meyering

further testified that according to respondent's procedures he,

rather than another agent, would have been required to make any

changes to the notice.   Mr. Meyering also testified that a joint

notice in this case was inappropriate because joint notices are

only issued when taxpayers make an election to file jointly.         In

this case, respondent determined that Mr. Wheeler had failed to

file Federal income tax returns for the years 1992 through 1996

and that an election to file jointly was not made.       Moreover,

petitioners in a letter attached to their Tax Court petition

state "Diana's name was somehow inadvertently omitted".

     For the foregoing reasons, we find that the statutory notice

of deficiency in this case was issued solely to Mr. Wheeler and

was not issued to Mrs. Wheeler.   Accordingly, we hold that we do

not have jurisdiction over Mrs. Wheeler.     Respondent's motion to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction with respect to Mrs. Wheeler, to

change caption, and to strike, is granted.



                                            An appropriate order

                                       will be issued.
