- 7 -
has no knowledge of the alleged letters of notification and did
not receive them. As in the case of the claimed telephone
notification calls, petitioner failed to present any
substantiation of the evidence beyond his own testimony. Under
the circumstances of this case, and in view of petitioner's
repeated presentation of unsubstantiated evidence, we are not
convinced of the authenticity of the supposed letters of
notification. We are not required to accept petitioner's self-
serving testimony. Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77
(1986).
Accordingly, we hold that in this case the notice of
deficiency for the years in issue was mailed to petitioner's last
known address by certified mail and that petitioner failed to
provide respondent clear and concise notification of an address
change prior to the date of mailing of the deficiency notice.
2. Actual Receipt
Even if the deficiency notice here had been improperly
addressed, nevertheless the notice would be valid since the
record shows that petitioner received actual notice of
respondent's deficiency determination in time for him to file a
petition within the 90-day period after mailing of the notice.
See Mulvania v. Commissioner, supra at 68-69.
The postman who delivered mail at 2407 Lascar Place
testified that he had spoken with petitioner on numerous
occasions, that he regularly delivered mail addressed to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011