- 6 -
Ficklin had no personal knowledge of any of the entries on the
face of the subject envelope.4
Discussion
Before an action can be commenced in this Court, a valid
notice of deficiency must be sent by the Commissioner to the
taxpayer. Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Pyo v.
Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). Section 6212(a)
authorizes the Commissioner to send the notice of deficiency to
the taxpayer by certified mail. Section 6212(b)(1) provides, in
effect, that the notice of deficiency is valid if it is mailed to
the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address. Actual
receipt of the notice of deficiency by the taxpayer is not
required if the notice was mailed to the taxpayer's last known
address. Keado v. United States, 853 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1988).
A notice of deficiency is intended to serve two purposes.
Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983). It is intended
to notify a taxpayer that a deficiency has been determined
against the taxpayer and to give the taxpayer the opportunity to
petition this Court for a redetermination of that deficiency.
Id. As previously noted, a notice of deficiency mailed to the
4 Petitioner objected to Mr. Ficklin’s testimony in toto on
the basis of competence and hearsay. To the extent that Mr.
Ficklin was testifying as to post office procedures, we overrule
petitioner’s objection. To the extent that Mr. Ficklin was
testifying to the timing and the accuracy of the information on
the subject envelope, his testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011