- 5 -
this Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. Sec.
6213(a).
However, a notice of deficiency is not invalid merely
because it is not sent to the taxpayer's last known address. In
particular, an otherwise erroneously addressed notice of
deficiency remains valid under section 6212(a) if actually
received in sufficient time to permit the taxpayer, without
prejudice, to file a timely petition for redetermination. See
Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67-69 (1983) (erroneously
addressed notice held valid in light of actual receipt by the
taxpayer 16 days after it was mailed), affd. 769 F.2d 1376 (9th
Cir. 1985); see also Patmon & Young Professional Corp. v.
Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216, 217 (6th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo.
1993-143; Balkissoon v. Commissioner, 995 F.2d 525, 528-529 (4th
Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-322.6
There arguably are lingering questions in this case in
regard to whether the notice of deficiency was mailed to
petitioner's correct last known address and whether petitioner is
entitled to the 90- or 150-day period under section 6213(a) to
file her petition with this Court. Nonetheless, the record, as
developed at the hearing in this case, shows that petitioner
personally received the notice of deficiency mailed to the Silver
Spring address on April 18, 1995, 4 days after it was mailed.
6 Cf. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.
1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-98.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011