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