- 10 -
address. The initial notice was returned to respondent
undelivered. Eleven days after the period of limitations
expired, respondent remailed the initial notice to the taxpayers
at their residence, where it was received. The taxpayers then
filed a petition in this Court, raising as an affirmative defense
the period of limitations. We upheld that defense, finding that
assessment was barred since the initial notice was not remailed
to the taxpayers until after the period of limitations had
expired. We reasoned that the initial notice was a "nullity"
because the initial notice was erroneously addressed and was
returned to respondent undelivered.
The Reddock case exemplifies the rule that, if respondent
acts so as to indicate that a notice of deficiency is null, she
will be bound by the consequences of such action. See, e.g.,
Eppler v. Commissioner, 188 F.2d 95, 98 (7th Cir. 1951) (petition
to redetermine a deficiency timely when mailed within 90 days of
second notice of deficiency but without 90 days of first notice
of deficiency; by sending second notice, Commissioner in effect
“withdrew or abandoned” the first notice and, when second notice
was mailed, "started a new 90 day period of appeal"). In the
Reddock case, respondent's remailing of the misaddressed notice
of deficiency was convincing evidence that she considered the
prior notice a nullity. We reach a contrary conclusion here,
because respondent took no actions that evidence an abandonment,
withdrawal, or nullification of the October 6 notice. It was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011