James A. and Muriel M. Andrews - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                          

          section 6212(b)(1).1  Respondent argues that the notice of                   
          deficiency in this case was mailed to petitioners’ last known                
          address and that the petition was untimely because it was not                
          filed within 90 days after the notice of deficiency was mailed.              
          Petitioners argue that the notice of deficiency is invalid                   
          because it was not mailed to petitioners’ last known address and             
          that the 3-year period of limitations on assessment has run.  A              
          hearing was held on the motions, and the parties submitted                   
          memoranda of law in support of their motions.2  We find that the             
          notice was mailed to the last known address and therefore grant              
          respondent’s motion and deny petitioners’ motion.                            
               On their petition, petitioners listed their address as c/o              
          G. Braun Oyster Co., P.O. Box 971, Cutchogue, New York 11935,                
          which is the workplace of petitioner James A. Andrews                        
          (petitioner).  Petitioners have resided since 1988 at 772 Indian             
          Neck Lane, Peconic, New York.  Their correct mailing address                 
          since 1987, when they obtained their current post office box, has            
          been P.O. Box 227, Peconic, New York 11958 (the Box 227 address).            

               1 Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the             
          Internal Revenue Code.                                                       
               2 In their motion to dismiss, petitioners initially argued              
          that respondent’s motion to dismiss was untimely and that the                
          case should be dismissed in petitioners’ favor on that basis.  At            
          the hearing, petitioners withdrew this argument.  The parties                
          agreed at the hearing, and argue on brief, that the issue in the             
          case is whether the notice of deficiency was sent to petitioners’            
          last known address.                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011