Robert G. Honts - Page 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,                               
                  In Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 49 (1983), we                                   
                         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 an unpublished order of                                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