- 11 -
petitioner’s agent, Levin, who asked to obtain a copy of the
October 6 notice; respondent’s agent, Henry, did not resort to
certified or registered mail or, indeed, any form of mail to
satisfy that request; he transmitted a copy of the October 6
notice by facsimile transmission. Henry stated that he was
acting to protect petitioner’s interests. Those are not indicia
that respondent had come to realize that the October 6 notice was
faulty and that she was seeking to start things anew.
Accordingly, we conclude that the November 10 communication
constituted merely a copy of the October 6 notice, not a new
notice.
We still must decide, however, what consequence we are to
attach to our assumption that the October 6 notice was not
addressed to petitioner’s last known address.
In Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42 (1983), we dealt
with a situation analogous to that which we face today. There,
respondent mailed a notice of deficiency to the taxpayers before
the period of limitations expired. That notice was not mailed to
the taxpayers’ last known address, but it was forwarded by the
Postal Service to the taxpayers, who actually received it,
although after the period of limitations had expired. The
taxpayers argued that the statute of limitations had expired with
respect to the taxable years in issue there. We set forth the
following two rules:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011