- NEXTRECORD -
minor that it would not have prevented delivery); Riley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-231 (same). Thus, we find that
respondent mailed at least one copy of the notices of deficiency
to petitioner at her last known address.
In any event, the errors in the address of the notices of
deficiency mailed to petitioner in Ivanhoe, Texas, were rendered
harmless by virtue of the fact that petitioner actually received
all three copies of the notices of deficiency. An erroneously
addressed notice of deficiency is valid if the taxpayer receives
actual notice of respondent's deficiency determination in a
timely fashion; i.e., without prejudicial delay. See Mulvania v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67-68 (1983) (holding an erroneously
addressed notice valid under section 6212(a) where taxpayer
received the notice 16 days after it was mailed); Patmon & Young
Professional Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-143, affd. 55
F.3d 216 (6th Cir. 1995); Iacino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-111 (where a notice of deficiency mailed to 6221 East 42nd
Avenue, rather than to 6211 East 42nd Avenue, resulted in actual
notice without prejudicial delay, the notice was valid although
misaddressed).
The record in the instant case reveals that petitioner was
presented with the notices of deficiency about a week after they
were mailed by respondent. Petitioner was directly asked by Ms.
Russell, the Ivanhoe postmistress, whether petitioner intended to
claim her certified mail, and petitioner refused delivery by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011