- 10 -
address. Petitioner was only able to state that she telephoned
the personnel department some time during the fall of 1994.
Further, respondent was unable to find any record of the matter.
Consequently, even assuming arguendo that such notice could be
considered clear and concise notice of a taxpayer's change of
address, petitioners have failed to prove that respondent
received the critical information before mailing the notice of
deficiency on September 9, 1994.
In addition, a third-party information return does not
constitute clear and concise notice to respondent of an address
change affecting the payee. See McCart v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-3, affd. without published opinion 981 F.2d 1247 (3d
Cir. 1992); Berg v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-77. Further,
consistent with our holding above that respondent was not aware
that the Georgia address was not petitioners' current address,
respondent had no reason to search third-party information
returns for petitioner John Stafford's address.
In sum, petitioners failed to keep respondent apprised of
their correct addresses. Respondent mailed the notice of
deficiency to the address appearing on petitioners' most
recently filed tax return--the same address that respondent
derived from a search of her computer records at the time that
the notice of deficiency was prepared. Considering all the
facts and circumstances, we are convinced that respondent mailed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011