Robert G. Honts - Page 14

            aforementioned addresses, or that petitioner had actual notice of                              
            the mailings.  In addition, the Patmon case is distinguishable in                              
            that the notice of deficiency was returned to the Commissioner                                 
            stamped "unclaimed and refused".  In other words, the taxpayer                                 
            actually reviewed the envelope containing the notice and refused                               
            receipt of the item.  In the instant case the notice was returned                              
            "unclaimed".  This Court has been presented with no evidence, and                              
            there exists no basis upon which we could make a finding, that                                 
            petitioner had actual notice of the issuance of the notice of                                  
            deficiency or intentionally avoided delivery thereof.                                          
                  Respondent also cites Shuford v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                                
            1990-422, affd. without published opinion 937 F.2d 609 (6th Cir.                               
            1991) and Erhard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-344, in support                              
            of her motion to dismiss.  Like the taxpayer in Patmon v.                                      
            Commissioner, supra, the taxpayers in the cases cited by                                       
            respondent received actual notice of issuance of the notice of                                 
            deficiency.  Here petitioner was not informed of the issuance of                               
            the notice of deficiency until Agent Lizcano raised the issue on                               
            August 31, 1993.                                                                               
                  Respondent argues, alternatively, that if we find the notice                             
            of deficiency to be invalid, then it should only be invalid with                               
            respect to 1987, the year for which the power of attorney                                      
            applied.  We find this argument to be without merit.  It was                                   
            respondent who chose to send a single deficiency notice rather                                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011