- 8 -
a notice sent to the last known address is valid whether or not
the taxpayer actually receives it. See, e.g., United States v.
Zolla, 724 F.2d at 810. Nothing in the Code required respondent
to take additional steps to effectuate delivery of the instant
notice of deficiency after it was returned undelivered by the
post office. King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 681 (9th Cir.
1988), affg. 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Armstrong v. Commissioner, 15
F.3d 970 (10th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-328; Pfeffer v.
Commissioner, 272 F.2d 383 (2d Cir. 1959); Monge v. Commissioner,
supra; McCart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-3, affd. without
published opinion 981 F.3d 1247 (3d Cir. 1992). As a
consequence, petitioners' arguments that respondent had an
obligation to provide actual notice and that respondent did not
exercise due diligence must fail.
With respect to petitioners' reliance on Tulsa Professional
Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, supra, the Court finds that case
to be distinguishable from this case. The Tulsa case involved a
"nonclaim" provision of the Oklahoma Probate Code, under which a
creditor's claim against a decedent's estate would be completely
extinguished unless the claim was presented to the executor or
executrix within 2 months after the publication of notice of the
beginning of probate proceedings. The creditor in that case,
having failed to meet that 2-month deadline, successfully argued
that notice by publication was insufficient to protect the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011