- 9 -
concise notice of petitioner's change of address to 2411
Ingleside Avenue.
Considering all the facts and circumstances, we need not
resolve whether respondent was provided with clear and concise
notice of petitioner's change of address. As explained in
greater detail below, we conclude that, even assuming arguendo
that the 2411 Ingleside Avenue address constituted petitioner's
last known address, the notice of deficiency was delivered to
that address without prejudicial delay.
It is well settled that, although a deficiency notice
properly mailed to a taxpayer's last known address provides the
Commissioner with a "safe harbor" under section 6212(b), an
improperly addressed notice is nonetheless valid if the taxpayer
receives actual notice of the Commissioner's deficiency
determination in a timely fashion i.e., without prejudicial
delay. See Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67-68 (1983)
(erroneously addressed notice is valid under section 6212(a)
where the taxpayer received the notice 16 days after it was
mailed). Consistent with the foregoing, the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, the court to which this case is appealable,
observed:
Reading the interrelated sections of the Code as
an integrated whole, it is apparent that the
legislative plan contemplates that actual notice of the
deficiency should be given where such can reasonably be
achieved and that the mailing authorized by section
6212(a) is a means to that end. * * * A mailing that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011