- 32 -
deficiency was in effect the use of the address shown on
petitioner's most recently filed tax return. See Armstrong v.
Commissioner, 15 F.3d 970, 972, 974 (10th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1992-328.
In Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988), we
stated as follows:
a taxpayer's last known address is that address which
appears on the taxpayer's most recently filed return, unless
respondent has been given clear and concise notification of
a different address. * * *
Whether such a "clear and concise notification of a
different address" has been given is a question of fact and the
burden of proving such a notification is on petitioner. Cyclone
Drilling Inc. v. Kelley, 769 F.2d 662, 664 (10th Cir. 1985);
Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. at 31. On the facts thus far
discussed, we must rule that respondent sent the notice of
deficiency on September 14, 1990, to petitioner's last known
address, unless we conclude that petitioner met his burden of
proving that he gave to respondent a "clear and concise
notification of a different address".
We have found that Spencer telephoned petitioner on July 30,
1990, and verified that the I.R.S. Classen address was
petitioner's mailing address. We have found that Mackenzie
checked on or about November 7, 1990, and did not find in
respondent's case file or on respondent's computer any written
notification of a change of address for petitioner before
petitioner's October 23, 1990, letter.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011