- 33 -
Petitioner testified after receipt of the evidence on which
the foregoing findings are based, but his testimony did not deal
with these matters. Petitioner also testified earlier in the
trial, and stated that he had advised Burns' successor that the
P.O. drawer address should be used as his last known address.
Petitioner has not told us when he notified Burns
successor, nor whether the notification was oral or written, nor
what words he used. As a result, we have no way of knowing (1)
whether the notification was before July 30, 1990, and so was
superseded by Spencer's July 30 telephone conversation with
petitioner, or was after September 14, 1990, and so was too late,
because the notice of deficiency had already been mailed (see,
e.g., Armstrong v. Commissioner, 15 F.3d at 975); (2) why
MacKenzie's early-November examination of the case file or the
computer records did not reveal any such notification; and (3)
whether we would conclude that petitioner's words constitute a
"clear and concise notification of a different address".
We conclude, and we have found, that respondent exercised
due care and diligence in ascertaining petitioner's correct
mailing address and mailing the notice of deficiency to
petitioner at the correct address on September 14, 1990. Monge
v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. at 33. We conclude, and we have found,
that respondent mailed the notice of deficiency to petitioner at
his last known address on September 14, 1990. Accordingly, the
September 14, 1990, notice of deficiency is valid; it was mailed
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011