- 11 -
at Mail Boxes, Etc., on November 24, 1995--only 9 days after the
notice was mailed.
Although the record does not reveal the exact date that Mail
Boxes, Etc., forwarded the notice of deficiency to petitioner,
such factor would not affect the result in this case. Petitioner
does not dispute that Mail Boxes, Etc., was authorized to accept
delivery of the deficiency notice on her behalf. If Mail Boxes,
Etc., delayed sending the notice of deficiency to petitioner, any
prejudice is attributable to the inaction of her agent. As we
see it, such inaction, like that of a taxpayer who refuses to
accept delivery of a notice of deficiency, would not render the
notice invalid. See, e.g., Erhard v. Commissioner, 87 F.3d 273
(9th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-344; Patmon & Young
Professional Corp. v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216 (6th Cir. 1995),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-143.
In sum, even assuming arguendo that petitioner's last known
address was 2411 Ingleside Avenue as she contends, we conclude
that the notice of deficiency was delivered to that address
without prejudicial delay. Consequently, we will grant
respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and we
will deny petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction.2
2 Although petitioner cannot pursue her case in this Court,
she is not without a remedy. In short, petitioner may pay the
tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011