- 16 -
76 T.C. 750, 752-753 (1981); see also Triangle Investors Ltd.
Partnership v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 610, 616 (1990).
The extensive record in this case, including a total of 65
exhibits as well as the testimony of credible individuals
employed by the Postal Service and by respondent, establishes
that respondent mailed the subject notice of deficiency to the
address on petitioners' most recent return. Respondent was not
given clear and concise notification of a change of address. The
addition of the rural box number to petitioners' mailing address
was inconsequential, did not affect delivery of mail to
petitioners, and was not a part of petitioners' address on their
most recent tax return prior to the mailing of the notice of
deficiency in issue. We hold that the notice of deficiency with
respect to petitioners' taxable years 1983 to 1986 was properly
mailed by certified mail directed to petitioners' last known
address on October 9, 1992.8
8 We have not stated our view as to whether petitioners
actually received the notice in question, although the record
includes evidence on that question, since it is plain that under
the facts of this case, respondent has done all that the statute
requires of her and was not required to guarantee the actual
receipt of the properly addressed notice. See Monge v.
Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 34 (1989). Petitioners' due process
argument is without merit. Although they cannot pursue their
case in this Court, they are not without remedy. Petitioners may
pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and if the
claim is denied, sue for a refund in the appropriate Federal
District Court or in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See
Patmon & Young Professional Corp. v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216,
218 (6th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-143; McCormick v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970).
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