Robert G. Honts - Page 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                                      
                  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                                  
                  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