- 7 -
taxpayer at his or her last known address is valid, whether or
not it is actually received. Keado v. United States, supra.
An inconsequential error in the address will not preclude a
finding that a notice of deficiency was valid. Frieling v.
Commissioner, supra (misaddressed notice of deficiency was valid
where taxpayers filed a timely petition). Instances where an
error has been found inconsequential have generally involved one
or both of the following situations: (1) The error was so minor
that it would not have prevented delivery, e.g., McMullen v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-455; Kohilakis v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1989-366; or (2) the error did not result in actual
prejudice to the taxpayer-addressee, e.g., Frieling v.
Commissioner, supra; Iacino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-111
(where a notice of deficiency mailed to 6221 East 42nd Avenue
instead of 6211 East 42nd Avenue resulted in actual notice
without prejudicial delay, the notice was valid although
misaddressed); McMullen v. Commissioner, supra; Riley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-231. The present case falls into
neither category.
We therefore consider whether, under the facts and
circumstances presented here, respondent's error in addressing
the notice of deficiency was consequential.
Respondent contends that the envelope, returned marked
"unclaimed", indicates both that a delivery attempt was made and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011