July 1, 1994          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________


          No. 93-1654

            


                                 PHILIP PAUL BASSETT,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                                Respondent, Appellee.


                                  __________________

                       APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT

                          
                    [Hon. Stephen J. Swift, U.S. Tax Court Judge]
                                            ____________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               Philip Paul Bassett on brief pro se.
               ___________________
               Michael L. Paup, Acting  Assistant Attorney General, Gary R.
               _______________                                      _______
          Allen, Gilbert S.  Rothenberg and  Steven W. Parks  on brief  for
          _____  ______________________      _______________
          appellee.



                                  __________________

                                  __________________





















                      Per Curiam.  Philip Paul Bassett  seeks review of a
                      __________

            Tax Court  decision  sustaining an  Internal Revenue  Service

            (IRS) determination that Bassett  had underpaid his taxes and

            was liable for certain penalties as a result.  The  Tax Court

            decision entered  on January  15, 1993,  but Bassett  did not

            file his notice of appeal until June 11, 1993, well after the

            appeal period had expired.  See 26 U.S.C.   7483 ("Review  of
                                        ___

            a decision of  the Tax  Court shall be  obtained by filing  a

            notice  of appeal with  the clerk of the  Tax Court within 90

            days after the decision  of the Tax Court is  entered.").  In

            response  to  our order  to show  cause  why his  late appeal

            should proceed, Bassett alleged that he had not been informed

            of his appellate rights  or obligations by either the  IRS or

            the Tax Court.  We permitted the appeal to proceed, reserving

            the question  whether we  had jurisdiction over  the untimely

            appeal.

                      We  now  dismiss  Bassett's  appeal  for  lack   of

            jurisdiction.  See  Vibro Manufacturing Co.  v. Commissioner,
                           ___  _______________________     ____________

            312 F.2d 253, 254  (2d Cir. 1963) (untimely filing  of appeal

            deprives  the  court  of  appeals  of  jurisdiction  over  an

            appeal).   The Tax Court's  failure to notify  Bassett of his

            appeal  rights does not excuse the untimely appeal so that we

            may  assume jurisdiction  over  the appeal.    See Wilder  v.
                                                           ___ ______

            Chairman of  the Central Classification Board,  926 F.2d 367,
            _____________________________________________

            371 n.2 (4th Cir.)  (the court rejected a pro  se appellant's



                                         -2-















            argument that the district  court's failure to inform  him of

            the proper procedures  for seeking an appeal was  grounds for

            permitting his untimely appeal to proceed), cert. denied, 112
                                                        ____________

            S.  Ct.   109  (1991);  Mayfield  v.   United  States  Parole
                                    ________       ______________________

            Commission, 647  F.2d 1053,  1055 n.5  (10th Cir.  1981) (the
            __________

            court  suggested  that,  because the  time  requirements  for

            filing  an  appeal  are  jurisdictional, they  would  not  be

            affected by the district court's failure to heed the court of

            appeals'  previous  suggestion  that  pro  se   litigants  be

            notified  of their appeal rights and duties).  The same would

            be true  of any failure by  the IRS to inform  Bassett of his

            appellate rights, assuming, that is, that the IRS had such an

            obligation.    

                      Appeal dismissed. 
                      _________________

























                                         -3-