- 8 -
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-152; Fernandez v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1987-557. Whether respondent has exercised reasonable
diligence in this regard depends upon a consideration of all the
facts and circumstances. King v. Commissioner, supra at 678-679.
In Wallin v. Commissioner, supra, correspondence sent by the
Commissioner to the taxpayer at an address in Alaska shown on the
return for the year at issue was returned as undeliverable with
no forwarding address. In an effort to obtain the taxpayer's
correct address prior to mailing a notice of deficiency, the
Commissioner subsequently made inquiries at the Anchorage Post
Office and the Alaska State Motor Vehicle Bureau and searched
microfilm records for tax returns filed by Alaskans in 1978 and
1979. When these steps did not produce a new address for the
taxpayer, the Commissioner mailed the notice of deficiency to the
taxpayer's old address. Under these circumstances, the Court of
Appeals held that the Commissioner failed to exercise reasonable
diligence in ascertaining the taxpayer's last known address. In
reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals found it
significant that the Commissioner failed to make an adequate
search of Internal Revenue Service computer records for the
taxpayer's correct address.
We conclude that respondent did not exercise due diligence
in ascertaining petitioner's correct address. In short, the
record shows that respondent was aware prior to issuing the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011