- 12 -
District Court discounted that testimony in light of all the
facts and circumstances, noting that the letter carrier could not
recall delivering the specific notice of deficiency. The court
held that the misaddressed notice of deficiency was invalid.
The misaddressed notice of deficiency mailed to petitioner
in this case failed to notify him that a deficiency had been
determined and thus deprived him of the opportunity to petition
this Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. See Frieling
v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. at 52. Had the notice of deficiency not
been misaddressed, it would have been valid whether or not
petitioner received it. Lifter v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 818
(1973).
This is not a case where a taxpayer refused to accept
delivery of a notice of deficiency or refused to collect such a
notice from the post office. Indeed, shortly after the mailing
of the subject notice of deficiency, respondent mailed another
notice of deficiency for other years to petitioner’s correct
address, and petitioner accepted delivery of that notice and
timely filed a petition with this Court. Rather, petitioner was
prejudiced by the fact that respondent's error prevented him from
becoming aware that the notice of deficiency had been mailed
until after the time for filing a petition had passed.
Accordingly, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of
this case and the foregoing analysis, we shall deny respondent's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction for the years 1987,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011