- 13 -
in ample time to file a petition with this Court, without regard
to whether the taxpayer resides at the address to which the
notice was sent. See Goodman v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 974, 977
(1979); Patmon & Young Professional Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1993-143, affd. 55 F.3d 216 (6th Cir. 1995). Thus, we must
determine whether petitioners received actual and timely notice
of the deficiency determination. We hold that petitioners did
receive such notice. A notice of deficiency is valid if mailed
to the wrong address but forwarded by the Postal Service and
actually received by the taxpayer without delay prejudicial to
the taxpayer's ability to file a timely petition. Borgman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-503, affd. 888 F.2d 916, 917-918
(1st Cir. 1989); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806 (1987).
Additionally, a taxpayer may not defeat actual notice by refusing
delivery of the deficiency notice, even if the notice were mailed
to the wrong address. Patmon & Young Professional Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra.
In the instant case, delivery of the notices of deficiency
was not delayed; the Postal Service timely forwarded both notices
to the Brownway address. Although petitioners deny that they
received the yellow slips from the Postal Service at the Brownway
address, petitioners acknowledge that they timely received other
mail sent to them by respondent at that address. Additionally,
at the hearing, petitioner testified that he was unaware of any
problems in the delivery of mail to the Brownway address.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011