10
returned, respondent had no way to know that petitioners failed
to receive the notice, if this was in fact the case.
In these circumstances, the Form W-4 did not, in and of
itself, serve to change petitioners' last known address. The
record does not establish whether or when a copy of that form was
mailed to the IRS. As we stated in Farnham v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1991-642, to require that the Commissioner use addresses
shown on such documents
would not only impose an unreasonable administrative burden
on respondent to record every address for every taxpayer,
but we would cause uncertainty by requiring respondent to
use an address which the taxpayer did not communicate to him
and which the taxpayer did not clearly tell respondent to
use. * * *
Id. (citing United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 811 (9th Cir.
1984); see also Thiele v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-33);
Hamilton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-265.
With respect to the Form 8822, Change of Address, a
purported copy of which was attached by petitioners to their
motion to submit filing of said copy, we find that this document
lacks any degree of credibility, and, therefore, give it no
weight in our decision. We find that the notice of deficiency
for taxable years 1988 and 1989 was mailed to petitioners' last
known address and, accordingly, grant respondent's motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition
filed by petitioners was untimely.
An appropriate order will
be issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011