- 8 -
even know when that letter was mailed, much less when it was
received. Moreover, even if respondent had received the July 9,
1996, letter several days later, it is unlikely that there would
have been sufficient time to update petitioners’ address into
respondent’s computer records.3 See Williams v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1989-439, affd. 935 F.2d 1066 (9th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, we find that petitioner’s last known address on
July 18, 1996, was the Studio City address, and that the 1993
notice of deficiency was sent to petitioner’s last known address.
Accordingly, we hold that the petition is untimely filed with
respect to 1993, and respondent’s motion will be granted.4
An appropriate order
will be issued.
3 We also have our doubts regarding the veracity of
petitioner’s testimony regarding receipt of the 1993 notice of
deficiency. We question why petitioner did not receive the 1993
notice of deficiency much earlier than December, if he in fact
stopped at his former address “from time to time”.
4 Although petitioner cannot pursue his 1993 case in this
Court, he is not without remedy. In short, petitioner may pay
the tax, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and if the claim
is denied, sue for a refund in the U.S. District Court or the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55
T.C. 138, 142 (1970).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: May 25, 2011