- 8 -
that two efforts were made to notify the addressee that mail was
waiting for him at the post office. Respondent argues that this
evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the error in the
address was inconsequential.
Respondent also identifies several cases which respondent
argues are so factually similar as to compel the conclusion that
the error was inconsequential. Two of the cases relied upon by
respondent are Kohilakis v. Commissioner, supra; and McMullen v.
Commissioner, supra. Each of the cases cited by respondent is
distinguishable.
In Kohilakis v. Commissioner, supra, a notice of deficiency
was addressed to the taxpayers at 184 Lincolm Ave., rather than
at their correct address at 184 Lincoln Blvd. The Court held
that the notice had been mailed to the last known address because
the error was inconsequential. Respondent indicates that
Kohilakis differs from this case only in that the taxpayers in
Kohilakis were out of the country at the time delivery was
attempted, whereas it is unclear in this instance whether
petitioner was at home or traveling.
We see greater distinctions than does respondent between the
present case and Kohilakis. Specifically, a person unfamiliar
with the addressee could likely have delivered the Kohilakis
notice to the correct address. Moreover, in Kohilakis the
taxpayers had previously received correspondence from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011