8
otherwise, it is the address to which, in light of all the
surrounding facts and circumstances, the Commissioner reasonably
believed the taxpayer wished the notice to be sent. Weinroth v.
Commissioner, supra; Looper v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 690, 696
(1980). The relevant focus is thus on the Commissioner's
knowledge, rather than on what may have been the taxpayer's
actual address in use. Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 219
(1982) (citing Alta Sierra Vista, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra).
In Abeles v. Commissioner, supra, we held that a taxpayer's last
known address is the address shown on his most recently filed and
properly processed return, unless the Commissioner has been given
clear and concise notice of a different address by the taxpayer.
Petitioners contend that the notice of deficiency for 1988
and 1989 is invalid because it was not mailed to their last known
address. Petitioners claim that their last known address, as of
the date the notice was mailed, was the Oliver Street address and
that respondent should have been aware of this address because:
(1) Petitioner filed a Form W-4 with his employer, International
Tech. Services, Inc., on May 12, 1993, listing his address as the
Oliver Street address; (2) petitioners received statements and
invoices from Charles Schwab at the Oliver Street address with
respect to individual retirement accounts; and (3) petitioner
filed a Form 8822, Change of Address, dated April 10, 1993, with
the Austin service center showing petitioners' former address as
the Fort Worth address and their new address as the Oliver Street
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011