- 5 -
(1987), affd. 857 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1988); Frieling v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983). If the notice of deficiency
is not mailed to the "last known address" pursuant to section
6212(b)(1), however, the notice nevertheless meets the
requirements of section 6212(a) and is valid from the date of its
mailing if the taxpayer actually receives the notice in
sufficient time to file a timely petition without prejudicial
delay. Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691, 693 (11th Cir.
1985); Clodfelter v. Commissioner, 527 F.2d 754, 757 (9th Cir.
1975), affg. 57 T.C. 102 (1971); Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81
T.C. 65, 68 (1983); Frieling v. Commissioner, supra at 57.
Providing the taxpayer with actual notice of the deficiency in a
timely manner is the essence of the statutory scheme. Mulvania
v. Commissioner, supra at 68, and cases cited thereat.
Accordingly, a taxpayer's actual receipt of a notice of
deficiency, without prejudicial delay, obviates the need to
decide whether the notice was mailed to the last known address.
Petitioners contend that, for purposes of section
6212(b)(1), petitioners' last known address is the Brook Court
address, which petitioners provided on their 1995 joint Federal
income tax return. Additionally, petitioners argue that
respondent, in mailing the notices of deficiency to the Wood
Terrace address, failed to exercise reasonable diligence in
determining petitioners' last known address, citing Gaw v.
Commissioner, supra, and Crawford v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011