Unpublished Disposition, 844 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Clark appeals the Tax Court's dismissal of her petitions for redeterminations of her income tax deficiencies for the 1981, 1982, and 1983 tax years. The Tax Court dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction because they were not timely filed within the requisite time period under 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a). We affirm.

The Government makes a threshold challenge to our jurisdiction over this appeal because of the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. We conclude that if we have jurisdiction, we must affirm the Tax Court's dismissal for lack of its own jurisdiction. The petitions filed with the Tax Court were not filed within the required 90-day period from the mailing of the notices of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a).

On appeal, Clark argues that the 90-day period for filing a petition for redetermination did not commence until she actually received the notices of deficiency. The law is well-settled that receipt of notice is not a prerequisite to its effectiveness. The plain language of the statute states, "notice of a deficiency ..., if mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address, shall be sufficient." 26 U.S.C. § 6212(b) (1) (emphasis added). Here, the notices were sent to Clark's last known address as contained in the IRS files. This was sufficient. See, e.g., United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 105 S. Ct. 116 (1984); Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Connett, 685 F.2d 309, 312 (9th Cir. 1982); Wilson v. Commissioner, 564 F.2d 1317, 1318-19 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 832, 99 S. Ct. 110 (1978); DeWelles v. United States, 378 F.2d 37, 39 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 996, 88 S. Ct. 501 (1967).

AFFIRMED.