- 10 -
Drive. No such address existed in Dallas. The Court found that
delivery at the proper address was attempted and held that,
despite the minor spelling error, the notice of deficiency had
been mailed to the taxpayer's last known address.
The case before us involves inverted numbers rather than a
minor spelling error. Moreover, we are not prepared to find, as
a factual matter, that delivery of the notice of deficiency was
attempted at the correct address. Therefore, the case before us
differs significantly from McMullen.
In cases such as the present one, where the Commissioner's
error prevented delivery of the notice of deficiency and where
the taxpayer was not made aware that a notice of deficiency had
been issued in time to file a timely petition, courts have held
that the notice of deficiency was invalid for failure to comply
with section 6212. E.g., Mulvania v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 1376
(9th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-98; Heaberlin v.
Commissioner, 34 T.C. 58 (1960); Council v. Burke, 713 F. Supp.
181 (M.D.N.C. 1988).
In Heaberlin v. Commissioner, supra, the notice of
deficiency was addressed to the taxpayer at 2803 S.E. 14th
Street, rather than 2907 S.E. 14th Street. The taxpayer "later"
received notification that a registered letter was being held for
him at the post office, and "after considerable delay, he
personally called for and accepted delivery of the notice".
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011