Keith Lee Wilson - Page 6

                                        - 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