- 15 -
testified that mail addressed to petitioners at the Route 208
address would be given to the appropriate letter carrier, who in
this case was Williams. Williams was explicit that during 1992,
mail addressed to petitioners at the Route 208 address did not
create confusion or make delivery uncertain or impossible. Mail
so addressed was delivered to petitioners by Williams. Williams
recalled working throughout October 1992 without missing a day
for sick leave or vacation. At trial, we found Walker and
Williams to be forthright and highly credible witnesses.
Petitioners also argue that the notice is invalid because
respondent purportedly failed to send copies of it to
petitioners' representatives in accordance with a Form 2848.
Dated July 11, 1988, the Form 2848 authorized respondent to send
to petitioners' designated representatives "copies of notices and
other written communications addressed to the taxpayer(s) in
proceedings involving" the years 1983 through 1987. It is not
clear from the record whether copies of the notice of deficiency
were sent to petitioners' representatives.7 However, even if
respondent did not send copies of the subject notice to
petitioners' representatives, her failure to do so would not
render the deficiency notice invalid. McDonald v. Commissioner,
7 Manico did not know whether copies of the notice were sent
to petitioners' designated representatives, and petitioners'
representatives did not testify at trial. Documents in
respondent's administrative file with respect to petitioners were
inconclusive.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011