- 9 -
Commissioner at the Lincoln Ave. address. In the present case,
certified mail sent to petitioner at the incorrect address was
never received.
Riley v. Commissioner, supra, also involved a misspelled
street address. The form used by the Postal Service to return
the unclaimed notice of deficiency to the Commissioner had the
proper address written on it by the Postal Service.
Consequently, there was "no dispute that delivery was attempted
by the postal service." Id. Accordingly, although the taxpayer
in Riley never received the notice of deficiency, the Court held
that the notice was valid because it had been sent to the
taxpayer's last known address.
By contrast, while the Court accepts in this case that
delivery of the misaddressed mail was attempted at some address,
we do not find conclusive the testimony of Mr. Ficklin that the
Postal Service would have delivered the misaddressed mail to the
correct address. Where the primary issue for resolution is
whether the manner in which respondent misaddressed the notice of
deficiency would have impeded its arrival at petitioner's home,
guesswork by the supervisor is not a valid substitute for the
testimony of the actual carrier.
In McMullen v. Commissioner, supra, the taxpayer's address
was 17503 Muirfield Drive, Dallas, Texas. Although otherwise
correct, the notice of deficiency was addressed to 17503 Murield
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011