8
surrounding facts and circumstances, the Commissioner reasonably
believed the taxpayer wished the notice to be sent. Weinroth v.
Commissioner, supra; Looper v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 690, 696
(1980). The relevant focus is thus on the Commissioner's
knowledge, rather than on what in fact may have been the
taxpayer's actual address in use. Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C.
215, 219 (1982) (citing Alta Sierra Vista, Inc. v. Commissioner,
supra).
In Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 49 (1983), we
stated:
Absent "clear and concise notification" from the
taxpayer directing respondent to use a different address,
respondent is entitled to treat the address shown on the
return for which the notice of deficiency is being issued as
the taxpayer's "last known address." However, once
respondent becomes aware of a change in address, he must
exercise reasonable care and diligence in ascertaining and
mailing the notice of deficiency to the correct address.
Whether respondent has properly discharged this obligation
is a question of fact. McPartlin v. Commissioner, 653 F.2d
1185, 1189 (7th Cir. 1981), revg. an unpublished order of
this Court; Weinroth v. Commissioner, supra at 435-436; Alta
Sierra Vista, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 374.
See also Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 633 (1984); Stroud v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-666.
In Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019 (1988), we held that
a taxpayer's last known address is the address shown on his most
recent return, absent clear and concise notice of a different
address. However, the mailing of the deficiency notice will meet
the conditions of section 6212(a) no matter what address was used
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011