- 10 -
(4th Cir. 2000), affg. T.C. Memo. 1996-256; Estate of Biskis v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-94; Estate of Citrino v.
Commissioner, supra. Even if the Commissioner mails the notice
of deficiency to a third party and not directly to the taxpayers
as section 6212(a) requires, the notice of deficiency is still a
valid notice under section 6212 as long as the taxpayer receives
actual notice of the proposed deficiency and files a timely
petition to contest it. See St. Joseph Lease Capital Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra (holding as valid a notice of deficiency not
mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address but faxed to the
taxpayer’s attorney and challenged by a timely petition); Lifter
v. Commissioner, supra at 822-823 (holding as valid a notice of
deficiency not mailed to the taxpayers’ last known address, but
received by the taxpayers’ attorney and challenged by a timely
petition); Brookshire v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-258;
Estate of Citrino v. Commissioner, supra (holding as valid a
notice of deficiency not mailed to the fiduciary’s last known
address, but somehow obtained by the taxpayer or his attorney in
time to file a timely petition).
The estate falls squarely within the aforementioned holdings
because the estate received actual notice of the deficiency
without prejudicial delay and filed a timely petition contesting
the deficiency in this Court. However, the estate contends that
we are required by our opinion in Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011