13
the return of the unclaimed notice, Agent Lizcano could have
simply notified the accountants that a notice for tax year 1987
had been mailed on April 9, 1993, just as he did on August 31,
1993. In the end, if respondent wanted to avoid improper
disclosure, she could have issued two separate notices of
deficiency.
Agent Lizcano maintains that he was unaware of the exact
date that respondent sent the notice and was not informed that it
had been returned unclaimed. Even assuming, arguendo, that this
was the case, "An innocent taxpayer should not be penalized
because the tax collector neglects to tell his right hand what
his left hand is doing." Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. at 637;
see also Keeton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 377, 383 (1980) (stating
"We will not allow respondent to come into this Court wearing
blinders").
Respondent further argues that it is irrelevant whether the
notice of deficiency was sent to petitioner's last known address
because petitioner received actual notice of the deficiency. In
support of her argument, respondent points to the two delivery
attempts at the Lohman address and the notices sent to the
Mansfield address and 6805 Comanche Trail, and cites Patmon and
Young Professional Corp. v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216 (6th Cir.
1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-143.
We have been presented with no evidence to establish that
petitioner actually received the notices of deficiency at the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011